Combustion Engineering Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1984

272 N.L.R.B. 957 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 957
Combustion Engineering Inc and Roger Levelllee
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local
237 and International Brotherhood of Boiler
makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers
and Helpers and Roger Levelllee Cases 39-
CA-1450 and 39-CB-364-1-2
26 October 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 30 March 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Harold B Lawrence issued the attached decision
The Respondent Local 237 and the Respondent
Employer filed exceptions and supporting briefs
and the General Counsel filed a resubmission of his
brief to the judge a cross exception and a brief in
support of his cross exception and of the judge s
decision
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions cross exception
and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge s rul
ings findings 1 and conclusions 2 as modified and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified
The General Counsel excepts to the judge s fail
ure to find that Respondent Local 237 violated the
Act when its business manager Dupuis filed inter
nal union charges against LevetHee We find merit
to this exception
As is described in greater detail by the judge on
22 October 1982 Levelllee and David Dupuis en
gaged in a heated discussion concerning the identi
1 Respondent has excepted to some of the Judge s credibility findings
The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law
Judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are Incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cu- 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings In this regard we note that the judge erred when in dis
crediting James Lee he relied in part on the fact that Respondent Local
237 had paid for the expenses incurred by Lee in connection with his at
tendance at the hearing Nonetheless this error does not warrant our re
versing the judge s conclusion that Lee should be discredited to the
extent that his testimony differed from that of Charging Party Roger Le
veillee
The Judge made no finding as to the supervisory status of General
Foreman William Scrivener Based on Scrivener s admitted authority to
recommend that employees be discharged we find that he is a supervisor
within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act
2 In adopting the judge s conclusion that Leveillee engaged in protect
ed concerted activities when he asked Business Manager David Dupuis
about which collective bargaining agreement applied to the worksite and
whether certain benefits would be paid pursuant to the contract we note
that the Supreme Court recently stated that an individual employee s
statement or action is concerted if it is based on a reasonable and honest
belief and is reasonably directed toward the enforcement of a
collectively bargained right NLRB v City Disposal Systems 104
S Ct 1505 (1984)
ty of the collective bargaining agreement pursluant
to which the employees were working and the fact
that no travel allowance was being paid to employ
ees such as Leveillee who traveled substantial dis
tances from their homes to reach the jobsite Ac
cording to Dupuis the conversation ended when
he Dupuis said to Leveillee [I]f you don t like
the job nobody is forcing you to stay here There
is the fucking gate Don t let it hit you in the ass
on the way out and Leveillee replied How
would you like me to take you outside that gate?
On 25 October Dupuis filed internal union charges
against Leveillee alleging that Leveillee had violat
ed the International s constitution by inter aim
threatening a union officer with violence
The judge found that Dupuis filing of these
charges did not violate the Act He noted that Le
veillee s conduct was provocative and concluded
that the evidence did not establish that Dupuis was
not within proper bounds in filing the charges Fi
nally the judge found that Dupuis ire at Leveillee
which was evidence of Dupuis motivation for fail
ing to represent Leveillee properly also tended to
establish that Dupuis was sincere in believing that
Leveillee s conduct was at least in part censur
able For the following reasons we disagree with
the judge and find that Dupuis filing of internal
union charges against Leveillee constituted a viola
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
As found by the judge the filing of internal
union charges against Leveillee was only one of
the actions taken against him by the Union as a
consequence of his protected questioning of
Dupuis Thus we adopt the judge s findings that
Local 237 also caused the Company to transfer Le
veillee from his usual welding duties to a cleanup
detail a short time after his conversation with
Dupuis that Local 237 caused the Company to dis
charge Leveillee the following day that the
Unions breached their duty of fair representation in
their handling of Leveillee s grievance against the
Company which grievance was investigated by
Dupuis himself that the Unions imposed a 15 day
work referral suspension penalty against Leveillee
and that these actions were taken unlawfully be
cause they were motivated by Leveillee s asking
his union representative which contract applied to
the jobsite and complaining about the lack of cer
tam benefits Under these circumstances we con
dude unlike the judge that the other action taken
by the Union against Leveillee because of his con
versation with Dupuis the filing of internal union
charges was also motivated by Leveillee s protect
ed activity
Although a union may discipline its members in
order to protect legitimate union interests it may
272 NLRB No 146
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not discipline members merely because they assert
contractual rights 3 Similarly a union may not as
Local 237 did in the instant case discipline its
members for inquiring as to their contractual
rights Furthermore contrary to the judge we find
that the filing of internal charges against Levefflee
cannot be excused by Dupuis sincere belief that
Levefflee s intemperate remarks were censurable
The Board has held that similar remarks directed at
employer officials during the course of discussions
protected by Section 7 cannot justify the employ
er s discipline of the employee making the re
marks 4 Such reasoning applies with equal force
here where Levefflee made an ambiguous and con
ditional albeit somewhat threatening remark
during the course of his heated but protected con
versation with Dupuis Although Levefflee s con
duct might have justified the internal charges
against him if that conduct had occurred in an
other context we find that Levefflee s comments
were not so flagrant as to remove the conversation
from the protection of the Act Accordingly we
conclude that Local 237 restrained and coerced
Levefflee in the exercise of his Section 7 rights by
filing internal union charges against him thereby
violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that Respond
ent International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Local 237 and International Brotherhood of Boil
ermakers Iron Shipbuilders Blacksmiths Forgers
and Helpers and their officers agents and repre
sentatives and Respondent Combustion Engineer
ing Inc its officers agents successors and assigns
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi
fled
1 Insert the following as paragraph A 1(d) and
reletter the subsequent paragraph
(d) Filing internal union charges against any
employee because he has questioned a union offi
cial about the applicable collective bargaining
agreement or contractual benefits
2 Substitute the following for paragraph A 2(c)
(c) Expunge from their records any reference to
the unlawful discharge of Levefflee the imposition
upon him of the work referral suspension and the
filing of internal union charges against him and
notify him in writing that this has been done and
that his unlawful discharge and the other unlawful
3 See Sachs Electric Co 248 NLRB 669 677 (1980) (citing Scofield v
NLRB 394 U S 423 429 (1969))
See Southwestern Bell Telephone Co 260 NLRB 237 240 (1982) enfd
694 F 2d 974 (5th Or 1982)
discipline imposed upon him shall not be used as a
basis for future action against him
3 Substitute the attached notice designated Ap
pendix A for that of the administrative law judge
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Corn
bustion Engineering Inc or any other employer to
discharge refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate
against Roger Levefflee or any other employee
because said employee has incurred the displeasure
of any of our officers or representatives or because
of any other arbitrary or invidious reasons
WE WILL NOT file internal union charges against
any employee because he has questioned a union
official about the applicable collective bargaining
agreement or contractual benefits
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act as amended
or discriminate against them by failing to represent
them in a fair or impartial manner
WE WILL jointly and severally with Combustion
Engineering Inc make Roger Levefflee whole
with interest for any loss of pay and other losses
he may have suffered as a result of our unlawful
actions in inducing discrimination against him and
in procuring his unlawful discharge
WE WILL expunge from our records any refer
ence to the unlawful discharge of Roger Levefflee
the imposition upon him of the work referral sus
pension and the filing of internal union charges
against him and WE WILL notify him in writing
that this has been done and that his unlawful dis
charge and the other unlawful discipline imposed
upon him shall not be used as a basis for future
action against him
All employees in any bargaining unit represented
by the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Local 237 and International Brotherhood of Boil
ermakers Iron Shipbuilders Blacksmiths Forgers
and Helpers are by law entitled to and will receive
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 959
nondiscriminatory representation in the processing
of their grievances and otherwise
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS LOCAL 237 INTER
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER
MAKERS IRON SHIPBUILDERS
BLACKSMITHS FORGERS AND HELP
ERS
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HAROLD B LAWRENCE Administrative Law Judge
This case was tried before me on June 20 and 21 1983
at Hartford Connecticut The consolidated complaint
based on charges and amended charges filed by Roger
Levetllee on December 6 1982 and January 13 and 14
1983 was issued on January 19 1983 Violations of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act) are alleged to
have been committed by Combustion Engineering Inc
the Respondent Employer by Local 237 of the Interna
tonal Brotherhood of Boilermakers (Local 237) and by
the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron
Shipbuilders Blacksmiths Forgers and Helpers (the
International )
Levelllee a heliarc welder is a member of Local 29 of
the International who was referred to a job within the
geographical jurisdiction of Local 237 pursuant to the
International s Joint Referral Rules At the jobsite he
became involved in an altercation with David Dupuis
the business manager of Local 237 about the contract
terms under which he was supposed to be working
Almost immediately thereafter he was ordered by Re
spondent Employer s supervisory personnel to report to
the garbage dump where he was assigned to demeaning
work He was fired the next day He filed a grievance
which was processed only through the initial step and
which was thereafter rejected and discontinued by the
very same business manager with whom he had had his
quarrel Leveillee then made a fruitless appeal to the
International
The crux of the case against the Respondents is that
because of Leveillee s dissident conduct and his confron
tation with Dupuis Local 237 engineered his assignment
to the garbage detail and his subsequent discharge and
that along with the International it is guilty of having
failed to afford Leveillee fair representation when he
filed a grievance against the Respondent Employer in
connection with his discharge
Local 237 and the International are alleged to have
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by restraining and
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act It is alleged that this occurred
when they caused the Respondent Employer to impose
less desirable and more onerous working conditions on
Leveillee when they caused the Respondent Employer
to discharge Leveillee when by reason of the discharge
which Local 237 had incited Leveillee was suspended
from the job referral list in effect preventing him from
obtaining work with other employers through the refer
ral system and when they failed to afford Leveillee
proper representation in his grievance against the Re
spondent Employer for discharging him for reasons al
leged to have been unfair arbitrary invidious and in
violation of the fiduciary duty which they owed to him
Local 237 and the International are alleged to have
violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by causing the Re
spondent Employer to discriminate against him in viola
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when it assigned him to
less desirable duties and fired him and by imposing the
suspension from the referral system on him The Re
spondent Employer is alleged to have violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) by imposing more onerous working condi
tions on Leveillee and then discharging him in compli
ance with the request of or at the instigation of Local
237 thereby encouraging its employees to join support
or assist Local 237
The three Respondents interposed answers which
denied all allegations of wrongdoing and statutory viola
tion At the hearing the thrust of the defense of Re
spondents Employer and Local 237 was that Leveillee
had been discharged for cause and that the Union ful
filled its duty to him when it conducted an investigation
which established to its satisfaction that the discharge
had been justified It was argued that no interference
with Section 7 rights was involved Respondent Interna
tonal for the most part stood aloof from the proceed
ings contending that Leveillee had resorted to the Inter
national under a mistaken conception of the proper ap
pellate procedure
The parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard
to call examine and cross examine witnesses and to in
troduce any relevant evidence Posthearmg briefs have
been filed by the General Counsel and by all three Re
spondents
On the entire record and based on my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
There is no issue as to jurisdiction In their answers or
by stipulations entered into at the outset of the hearing
Local 237 and Respondent Employer admitted that at
the material times the Respondent Employer was en
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that Respondent Local 237 and the Respondent Interna
tional are labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act Accordingly I find that as alleged in the complaint
the Respondent Employer is a Delaware corporation
with its office and place of business in Windsor Con
necticut and is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail
sale and distribution of power generation equipment and
the installation of such equipment at various sites One of
these was a jobsite of United Illuminating Company in
Bridgeport Connecticut During the calendar year
ending December 31 1982 the Respondent Employer
sold and shipped from Windsor Connecticut products
goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 directly
to points outside the State of Connecticut I accordingly
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that at all pertinent times the Respondent Employer
has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act It is alleged admitted
and I find that Respondent Local 237 and Respondent
International at all material times have been and are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Factual Background'
1 The Job
Roger Leveillee is a heliarc welder and has been a
member of Local 29 of the International located in
Quincy Massachusetts since 1974 He completed a 2
year apprenticeship in affiliation with the Boilermakers at
the Electric Board Submarine Welding Building facility
of General Dynamics Corporation in 1963 He remained
there for another 6 years which included 1 year in re
search and development welding
In October 1982 2 the assistant business manager of
Local 29 referred Leveillee to a job run by Respondent
Employer at the United Illuminating Company power
jobsite which was within the Jurisdiction of Respondent
Local 237 The bargaining unit represented by Local 237
was defined as all Respondent Employer s Journeymen
boilermakers and apprentices performing maintenance
repair replacement and renovation work at United Illu
minatmg Company Bridgeport Connecticut but exclud
ing general superintendents superintendents assistant su
penntendents office and clerical employees watchmen
or other professional or supervisory employees as de
fined in the National Labor Relations Act
It was Leveillee s understanding from his conversation
with the Local 29 assistant business manager that the job
would involve a 6 day week at 8 hours per day with pos
sible overtime together with an allowance for expenses
since the job was expected to last 6 or 7 weeks He was
told he would have to qualify by taking a make or
break test which involves a simulated test of the weld
ing work actually required for the job Leveillee had
worked on five or six previous jobs for the Respondent
Employer varying in duration from 6 days to 2 weeks
and had not encountered problems in any of them
William Scrivener the Respondent Employer s general
foreman administered the make or break test to Le
veillee It involved cutting four pieces out in strategic lo
cations and bending two of them backwards in a horse
shoe shape to determine if the back bends would result
in breaking the back of the weld Though Leveillee cut
the sections out the bending portion of the test was
never performed because he was sent out onto the job
According to Leveillee s testimony Scrivener was
highly complimentary of his work calling him probably
the best welder I ye got on this shift
When Leveillee started working he discovered that
contrary to what he had been led to believe he was to
, The facts of the case as set forth in this section are a narrative corn
posite of the undisputed and credited testimony admissions in the an
swers and data contained in the exhibits
2 Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter are in 1982
receive no expense reimbursement or overtime pay The
matter came up during the welding test when Leveillee
mentioned it to Scrivener and was told that expense
money was not being paid on that job According to Le
veillee he immediately asked Scrivener what contract
they were working under but received no response He
asked the Local 237 shop steward John Sullivan and
elicited nothing more than a grunt out of him When he
persisted in his questioning of the arrangement Scrivener
suggested that he talk to Dupuis the Local 237 business
manager Dupuis visited the premises on Friday October
22 Leveillee was alerted to his presence and went over
to him to ask him about the working arrangements
2 The confrontation between Leveillee and Dupuis
There is no dispute as to most of the details of the dis
cussion between Leveillee and Dupuis It took place at
the beginning of the night shift on Friday afternoon Oc
tober 22 William Scrivener on the preceding day had
suggested to Leveilee that he ask Dupuis who was due
to visit the premises about the contract details Scrivener
stated that he s a nice guy he s a good friend of mine
he 11 answer any questions you want to know Howev
er according to Leveillee s version of the event Dupuis
exhibited hostility as soon as Leveillee introduced him
self Leveillee told Dupuis that he was from Local 29
and had questions about the contract they were working
under Dupuis response was What s your problem
anyhow? Leveillee responded that he did not have a
problem but would Just like to know which contract
they were working under Dupuis after what Leveillee
described as a delay of a few moments simply answered
that they were working under a maintenance contract
This was a meaningless response inasmuch as all the
contracts fell into that category Leveillee therefore
asked him to specify the contract and said that he was
curious as to why they were losing $16 per day expense
money Then according to Leveillee s account Dupuis
waited until a passing worker was out of sight and he
turned around and looked at me and said hey as far as I
am fuckin concerned if you don t like this job there s
the gate to the parking lot you can screw right now
When he said that I got angry I got quite angry
Leveillee concedes that he responded in kind and pro
ceeded to lecture Dupuis to the effect that work had
been lost in the plant not because of the $16 per day ex
pense money but because of absenteeism drunkenness
and tardiness and suggested that if the Union cleared its
own house and emphasized to the contractor that it had
done so they might still have work in the plant and
would not have to use $16 per day as a bargaining point
Leveillee concluded his outburst by pointing to William
Scrivener the general foreman and challenging Dupuis
I said now that I pissed you off why don t you have
your general foreman over there put the screws to me
you ought to be able to negotiate that deal He then
walked up to his work place on the job Leveillee testi
tied that as he approached it Scrivener asked him to'do
him a favor-and give him as many tubes (the material
that was being welded) as he could that night and Le
veillee promised to do so
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 961
Dupuis version of the incident differs from Levelllee s
primarily in his identification of a witness as having been
present Dupuis testified that Levelllee came up to him
and interrupted a conference he was having with Al CI
vitello the day shift foreman Whereas Levelllee testified
that Civitello left at the outset and was not present
during any portion of his exchange with Dupuis Dupuis
testified that Civitello remained present throughout the
entire encounter Civitello in his own testimony cor
roborated Dupuis version and he asserted that he
walked Dupuis out to the parking lot immediately after
the exchange
Civitello and Dupuis both testified that Levelllee
walked up to them interrupted their conversation and
demanded to know what agreement they were working
under and why they were not getting travel expense
that when Dupuis told him the expense provision did not
apply on that Job Levelllee became outraged that
Dupuis told LevelHee they were working under the
power generation agreement and that Levelllee posed
his questions in an offensive manner According to Civi
tello Dupuis remained cool and calm throughout the
episode and appeared to be shocked at Levelllee s con
duct Dupuis told Levelllee that if he did not like it
there is the gate Levelllee invited Dupuis to go out
side the gate concerning the matter a suggestion to
which Dupuis made no response Civitello testified that
Levetllee walked off ranting that once union officials get
into their positions they forget about the men in the
field
Dupuis testified that the reason for his hesitancy in re
sponding to Levelllee s question as to what agreement
they were working under which Levelllee put to him in
a loud and offensive manner was that he did not exactly
know the answer and had to try to recall which agree
ment applied at the particular worksite The pause of 2
or 3 seconds seemed to enrage Levelllee When Dupuis
finally replied that they were working under the power
generation maintenance agreement with travel pay
waived Levelllee demanded to know who waived it
and when Dupuis said that he had waived It LevelHee
questioned his right to do so Levelflee started to wave
his finger in Dupuis face forcing Dupuis to step back
Dupuis testified that the conversation was loud and was
embarassing to him because workmen in the distance
were starting to look over at them Then Dupuis asserts
that he finally told Levelllee listen if you don t like the
job nobody is forcing you to stay here There is the
fucking gate Don t let it hit you in the ass on the way
out Levelllee replied How would you like me to take
you outside that gate? Dupuis testified that Levelllee
then went off to the boilerhouse screaming (he could not
recall what he was saying)
3 The cleanup detail
Within 15 or 20 minutes after Levelllee s angry discus
mon with Dupuis he was placed on a special detail Ac
cording to Levelllee he saw William Scrivener engage
in a conversation with his brother George who then
came over to him accompanied by another worker
named Kent George Scrivener told Levelllee to take his
gear because he had another assignment for him and was
not coming back to that work area He was directed to
accompany Kent to another area William Scrivener
watched them as they left
Kent conducted Levetllee to an area generally referred
to as the hopper area Here Kent directed him to
move a pile of scrap to another area which he designat
ed after that he was to sweep the floor and dump the
sweepings in the dumpster Levelllee s description of the
work detail was not contradicted by any of the other
witnesses
Q During the course of that evening did you
observe any union officials or company officials ob
serving you while working down at the hopper
area?
A Yeah I was taking this—sweeping all of this
stuff off the floor and I was taking it to a dumpster
It was a dumpster that we had complained about
several days earlier that they put garbage in it and
all the refuse and it stunk I mean it was ripe
And I was up into it I had coveralls on thank
God I was up to my knees throwing stuff in trying
to get it up in back of the dumpster because it was
filled to the front
As I was putting the stuff in the dumpster right
directly ahead of me was the office trailer and I
looked in the doorway and there was the company
erector and there was the job steward and they
were both looking at me laughing like it was
funny
I didn t say anything I just kept filling up the
dumpster
Q Now during the course of that evening did
you have any other converations or another conver
sation with William Scrivener?
A Yeah he came around during the latter part
of the night As he was walking by me he didn t
say anything to me his attitude changed completely
after that
The reference to the company erector was to an offi
cial named Wayne L Nestler whose credibility is dis
cussed below
Levelllee testified that he made it clear by remarks
which he made to other persons in the area that he had
no intention on giving up his job and would perform any
tasks to which he was assigned however obnoxious
4 The discharge of Levelllee
On the evening of October 23 Levelllee appeared at
the jobsite and headed for the hopper area in which he
had worked the previous night William Scrivener called
him by name and directed him to wait for him in the
trailer Scrivener appeared 15 minutes later and in a
conversation to which no one else was a party told Le
veillee that he was going to let him go Levelllee asked
him the reason and he responded Inadequate perform
ance He refused however to commit himself as to any
respect in which Leveillee s performance was mad
equate Leveillee testified
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I said come on I said you know what the hell this
is all about and he looked at me and he said what
the hell do you expect when you have a yelling
contest with the Business Manager I said that s
what this is all about I said you re canning me be
cause your boy s pulling the strings You re getting
rid of me He said I m not going to discuss it any
more I got your checks in my pocket 3
5 The grievance
On Monday October 25 Leveillee filed a grievance
by letter sent to David Dupuis at the office of Local 237
the substance of which was set forth in the following
terms
I believe the stated reason for my dismissal to be
unfounded and inadequate Despite my repeatedly
questioning the general foreman Bill Scnvener as
to the manner in which my performance was unsat
isfactory no reason was or could be given His only
comment was I can t and won t commit myself
Leveille also complained that he had been unable to
enlist the cooperation of the shop steward John Sulli
van 4
On that same date October 25 Dupuis stung by what
he testified he regarded as Leveillee s uncalled for con
duct drafted and mailed a statement of charges against
Leveillee pursuant to article XVII of the constitution to
the International vice president and told him about Le
veillee s conduct Nacey assured him that filing charges
was an appropriate manner in which to deal with im
proper conduct on the part of members in fact that was
the very purpose of the provisions which Dupuis con
templated invoking
Dupuis took other action against Leveillee besides
filing charges He imposed a 15 day referral penalty on
Leveillee This is a penalty authorized by the local and
national referral rules and standards and permits suspen
sion of work applicants from the out of work list for a
period of time as punishment for their having impeded
the orderly processing of work Dupuis set forth the
2 William Scrivener denied having made any such statement regarding
the confrontation between Leveillee and Dupuis He testified that the
reason for Leveillee a discharge was set forth on the slip which he
handed to Leveillee and that he refrained from comment because he had
learned from experience that discussing the specifics of the reasons for
discharge with an employee was a no win situation in which the dis
charged employee was never satisfied with the explanation given and
always disputed it Having closely observed the demeanor of the wit
nesses and having been cognizant of the circumstances in which the con
versation occurred and of the other factors bearing on the credibility of
the witnesses which manifested themselves during the hearing I credit
Leveillee s version of this critical event
4 This gnevance was filed under art 26 entitled Grievance Machin
ery of the articles of agreement between the International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers Iron Shipbuilders Blacksmiths Forgers and Helpers and
the Northeastern States Boilermakers Employers It was the concededly
correct procedure In addition Leveillee attempted Improperly to raise
the issues surrounding his discharge before the disputes committee estab
lished to hear controversies arising under the Joint referral rules and
standards He did this by sending a letter to the chairman of the Employ
ers negotiating committee and filing a bond required by the rules with
Dupuis who notified the International and held the bond until directed
to return it to Dupuis because of the inapplicability of that procedure to
Leveillee s case
reason for the imposition of the penalty in Leveillee s
case as Discharge for just and sufficient cause unless
discharge is not upheld by a ruling handled by the gnev
ance machinery Article 27 Northeastern States Agree
ment Dupuis signed and dated the document on Octo
ber 25
On receipt of Leveillee s grievance Dupuis conducted
an investigation He interviewed William L Scrivener
Sr general foreman Combustion Engineering Inc
Wayne L Nestler construction superintendent and
Bruno V Longhi construction superintendent He took
two written statements one of which was signed by all
of these supervisors and one of which was signed by
William L Scrivener alone He then wrote to Leveillee
denying the grievance and enclosing copies of the state
ments Copies of the correspondence and the statements
were sent to the International president to Nacey and to
several other union officials
The letter which Dupuis sent to Leveillee dated No
vember 4 read as follows
Your communication of October 25 1982 regarding
an investigation of your dismissal from Combustion
Engineering s repair project in Bridgeport Con
necticut has been received and complied with
On November 2 1982 I David Dupuis Business
Manager of Local #237 visited the aforementioned
job site and questioned both Union and Manage
ment personnel as to the circumstances surrounding
your dismissal The results of this investigation
strongly indicate just cause on behalf of Combustion
Engineering in your termination the basis being en
closed with this communication in the form of
signed statements
Being that this office has thoroughly investigated
your termination please be informed that our obli
gations have been met and this office finds that no
further investigation is warranted
The statement signed by Scrivener reads as follows
TO Whom It May Concern
RE Rodger Leveillee s termination on Boiler repair
at United Illuminating Company Bridgeport Con
necticut on October 23 1982
It was brought to my attention on several occasions
by both Foreman and Superintendent that Leveillee
was wandering around and not in his work area
without good reason I did look into the problem
and observed it myself This was over a span of
several days Not one incident but the accumulation
of events led to my recommendation to the Superm
tendent that this man be terminated at which time
it was mutually agreed upon
The statement signed jointly by Scrivener Nestler
and Longhi reads as follows
TO Whom It may Concern
Mr Roger E Leveillee was laid off on October 23
1982 due to unsatisfactory performance On
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 963
10/22/82 he was doing a lot of walking around the
job and the little work that he did do was unsatis
factory to myself and the General Foreman On
10/23/82 we decided to give him two hours show
up time and send him home
Levelllee pressed his case under the disputes proce
dure provided for in the joint referral rules and stand
ards and at his insistence Dupuis referred the matter to
Henry W Nacey International vice president at his
office at Virginia Beach Virginia In his letter to Nacey
Dupuis noted that he was retaining Levelllee s dispute
bond pending disposition and was also enclosing a copy
of Lodge No 237 s initial investigation into Mr Leveil
lee s termination
On November 22 Nacey advised Levelllee by letter
that the procedure he was attempting to follow under
the joint referral rules and standards was inapplicable
and that Dupuis would be instructed to return his bond
but that Leveillee s discharge was properly questioned
under article 26 of the articles of agreement With re
spect to that he stated
I have investigated the file pertaining to your dis
charge and have found the proper procedure has
been followed and it was determined based on the
evidence that your discharge was for just cause
You were notified of this determination by Business
Manager Dupuis in his letter to you dated Novem
ber 4 1982
B Analysis of the Circumstances Surrounding
Levedlee s Discharge
1 Dupuis connection to the action taken against
Leveillee by Respondent Local 237
The Respondents argue that there is no evidence
which directly links Dupuis to Leveillee s dismissal
While there is no eyewitness evidence of such a connec
tion there exists sufficient circumstantial evidence to
support an inference that Leveillee s altercation with
Dupuis led to all of his subsequent travails It is undis
puted that Dupuis pointed to the gate and invited Leved
lee to march through it if he did not like the working
arrangements This could be treated as merely a venting
of personal frustration and anger from the manner in
which Leveillee raised questions about the manner in
which the contract had been negotiated Leveillee con
ceded that his approach was somewhat lacking in tact
and charm However he puts the onus for that on
Dupuis whom he asserts was testy inviting him to leave
the job if he was dissatisfied and using confrontational
language which tended to elicit a reply in kind On the
other hand Dupuis testified that Leveillee came up to
him and immediately launched into a tirade complete
with finger pointing and physically threatened him by
inviting him to step outside the gate with him
Dupuis was genuinely distressed by the encounter but
the adversaries differ as to whether his emotional state
was one of anger as Leveillee asserts or one of hurt
shock and frustration as depicted by Dupuis Dupuis de
scribed his frame of mind in the following terms
To be honest with you it kind of worked on me
That was a weekend Naturally when I left that job
site I went home It was late It worked on me all
weekend On Monday morning I called Interna
tonal Vice President Henry Nacey and asked his
advice regarding the situation I explained to him
what had happened I felt that I had been threat
ened by the offer—how would you like me to take
you out in that parking lot' Mr Nacey advised me
that we have a procedure—which I was aware of
within the International Constitution just for that
type of thing and I wanted a little bit of assurance
that I wasn t out of place by doing that and Henry
said that is what it is for
The procedure referred to by Dupuis was the filing of
disciplinary charges within the Union pursuant to article
17 of the constitution If this was his frame of mind the
timing of subsequent events cannot be deemed accidental
or coincidental in the absence of very convincing proof
that the discharge was otherwise motivated The testimo
ny established that Dupuis had a history of a long term
assocation with the supervisory personnel of the Re
spondent Employer and his importance in labor manage
ment relations and in running the hiring hall is obvious
Management started turning the screws on Leveillee in a
patently vindictive fashion within minutes after Dupuis
left the premises in the company according to their own
account of Al Civitello a supervisor The matter is
clinched by William Scrivener s statement to Leveillee in
the trailer asking what could be expected in view of his
shouting match with the business manager
George Scrivener s explanation of how Leveillee got
to be assigned to the cleanup chore is altogether incredi
ble His testimony was that he was requested to send
somebody down to the cleanup detail and bumped into
Leveillee on the way to James Lee s unit to get some
body Since Leveillee was once again wandering and
was not working he assigned Leveillee to the cleanup
detail His testimony does not make sense to me Wayne
L Nestler the construction superintendent testified that
he had to contact Dupuis approximatey 24 to 48 hours
after Leveillee had been discharged in order to obtain
another pressure welder Considering the ugent need to
get welding work done—a matter on which there is no
dispute into he testimony—and Lee s complaint that im
portant work was not moving because of the unqualified
crew working under him I find it incredible that George
Scrivener would have assigned a welder to a cleanup
detail simply because he bumped into him while the
welder was wandering He would have sent the
welder back to his work area This in fact is what he
claimed he had done on pnor occasions Scrivener ex
plicitly testified that on an occasion when he saw Leved
lee downstairs walking and talking to a welder who was
taking a test he sent Leveillee back to his work area As
signing Leveillee to a clean up detail is something that
Scrivener most assuredly would not have done on his
own authority at the very least he must already have
known that Leveillee was not going to be doing any
more welding on that job It is undisputed that he told
Leveillee to take his equipment with him
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Altogether unpersuasive is the contention that the
timing of the assignment to the cleanup detail and the
discharge the following day all hard upon the alterca
tion between Dupuis and Levelllee was purely coinci
dental The assertion of William Scrivener Longhi and
Nestler that William Scrivener urged Longhi on several
prior occasions to discharge Levelllee is not accompa
med by a much needed explanation of why a welder
who was allegedly wandering all over the premises in
stead of working was retained on payroll over a 10 day
period especially when James Lee testified that he com
plamed about it on the second and third nights that Le
veillee was on the job and got no action I conclude that
Levelllee was not wandering excessively
The credibility of Dupuis denial of any connection
with Levelllee s dismissal is further diminished by his is
suance of the referral suspension on the very next busi
ness day after Levelllee was discharged (October 25)
Dupuis had to have acted with knowledge that Levelllee
had been discharged Yet he also testified that he had no
contact with the Respondent Employer for several days
after Leveillee s termination Nestler testified that he
contacted Dupuis for Leveillee s replacement within 24
to 48 hours after Leveillee was terminated
Other factors which diminish Dupuis credibility are
his lame excuse for personally conducting the investiga
tion of Leveillee s grievance that there was no one else
to do it in the face of a clear conflict of duty consider
ing his emotional state and the fact that he had just filed
charges against Leveillee and the innate bias which had
to have resulted from those very circumstances His ye
racity is undermined by his having committed a clear
abuse of discretion by the manner in which he conduct
ed the investigation (discussed below) and by his patent
ly unhelpful attitude toward Leveillee exhibited by his
failure to assist Leveillee in processing his grievance in
accordance with the appropriate procedure An officer
of the International testified that the national joint rules
and standards committee of the International issued a
letter on September 20 1979 in order to help the Local
Lodges administer the referral procedures that it was
mailed to the business managers (and not to the member
ship directly) and that the business managers were in
structed to advise individuals who invoked the wrong
grievance or dispute procedure as the proper procedure
to be followed that it is the business manager s responsi
bility to help the individual invoke the appropriate pro
cedure Dupuis did not comply with those instructions 5
Thus I regard Dupuis denial as suspect I have sen
ous doubts about the probity of William Scrivener and I
credit Leveillee s testimony that William Scrivener as
5 The fiduciary nature of the relationship betwen the business manager
and a member is clear form the duties of the business manager as set
forth in art 24 sec 10 of the International s constitution
The Business Manager (or the equivalent) shall be responsible for
organizing negotiating and administering collective bargaining
agreements including the appointment of all collective bargaining re
lated committees including but not limited to the negotiating corn
mittee safety committee local apprenticeship committee appoint
ment of job stewards and dispatching of job referral applicants The
business manager shall be empowered to transact all busi
ness and to manage and direct the affairs of the Lodge between
membership meetings
cnbed Leveillee s termination directly to the shouting
match with Dupuis
A convincing case is therefore made out that the as
signment of Leveillee to the cleanup detail in the hopper
area and his discharge the next day stemmed directly
from the altercation with Dupuis Dupuis extremely
upset by Leveillee s conduct invited him to quit filed
charges against him and imposed a 15 day referral penal
ty on him then he processed Leveillee s grievance and
rejected it The chain of adverse circumstances for Le
veillee commenced within minutes after Dupuis walked
off the premises accompanied by Al Civitello a supervi
sor with whom Dupuis had been having a discussion
when the incident started
2 The alleged ground for discharge Leveillee s
work performance
According to Leveillee his work performance was ex
ceptional and drew numerous expressions of approval
from supervisory personnel He was also complimented
for assistance which he gave to other welders Respond
ents witnesses heatedly denied this
James Lee who lives in Florida and came to Con
necticut at the expense of Respondent Local 237 testi
fled that he had been Leveillee s immediate foreman and
that he quickly discovered that Leveillee was a wander
er who was frequently away from him assigned work
station As a result his productivity was real low
amounting to a markedly subnormal average of three
tubes per night On Leveillee s second and third nights
on the job Lee suggested to Leveillee that he pick up
the work a little bit That he wasn t getting anything
done Lee George Scrivener and William Scrivener all
testified that attempts were made to increase productivi
ty by changing Leveillee s working partners and by
switching him around but these efforts proved unsuc
cessful because Leveillee continued to wander away
from his work station
Leveillee countered with testimony that his working
partner was discharged by the general foreman William
Scrivener because his work was of seriously deficient
quality and that Leveillee s work was pointed out to him
as an example of the level of quality that was expected
George Scrivener asked for Leveillee s opinion as to
how his erstwhile partner s replacement was doing
The mere fact that the Respondents witnesses out
number Leveillee does not impress me as much as the
fact that they all concede that the quality of his work
was good Their complaint related to the quantity of the
work he did The facts regarding this however are in
dispute it is their word against Leveillee s and they are
severely handicapped by their unexplained tolerance of
his allegedly low productivity over an unduly long
period of time and by their failure to produce any pro
duction records at the hearing Bruno V Longhi super
intendent of the night shift at the United Illuminating
Company jobsite testified that the number of welds com
pleted during the day shift was recorded in a daily
progress report which specified the number of welds
done in particular areas without identifying the workmen
responsible The total number of welds which were
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 965
going to be required on the job was known at the time
the job was started and the records were maintained for
our own benefit on the job to make sure we can make
the deadline From day to day therefore it was possi
ble to calculate the number of welds performed on the
preceding night shift in a given work area
Therefore as Levelllee testified keeping track of the
number of welds was a simple matter Nestler would
know as much as 2 weeks in advance what was going to
be welded how it was going to be welded and how
much welding had to be done In order to know how
many welds were done on the night shift it was neces
sary only to count the tubes finished at the conclusion of
the day shift and then count the total number of corn
pleted tubes the following morning The difference obvi
ously would be the number which had been completed
on the night shift If Levelllee s output had been defi
cient it should have been a simple matter to produce the
proof of it Instead George Scrivener after conceding
that no problem existed with respect to the quality of
Levelllee s work testified that no set amount of work is
required of welders It is understood that the amount of
work accomplished varies with the capabilities of the
particular welder and welders are not paid on the basis
of their work output but on the basis of the time spent
on the job He also conceded in effect that he had or
should have had a fairly precise idea of Leveillee s
output He conceded that the number of tubes produced
in a particular area could be determined although it was
not possible to attribute work to a particular welder be
cause more than one set of welders frequently worked in
any given work area However he testified that Leveil
lee reported to him on a daily basis and told him how
many tubes he had welded on a particular night Scnv
ener did not keep a separate record but put all of the
data into one computation for the particular area since
management was simply interested in knowing how
many were being done so that they could follow the
progress of the whole job Records of individual work
performance were not needed and therefore were not
kept for each individual Scrivener specifically used the
terminology that supervisors wanted to know for their
own records George Scrivener conceded that at differ
ent times he told all of the welders not just Leveillee
that he would like production increased
No explanation was offered for the absence of these
obviously important records I can only infer that had
they been produced they would not have lent credence
to the testimony that Leveillee s quantitative work per
formance was deficient Their absence is especially cnti
cal in the light of the Respondent Employers failure to
impose timely discipline on Leveillee for his alleged
wandering and in light of the difficulty of getting pres
sure welders for the job testified to by Wayne L Nes
tier the construction superintendent The absence of the
records of the welds made is highlighted by the almost
complete lack of any specific testimony as to the quanti
ty of work which was done or as to the quantity which
was left unfinished I would have expected the Respond
ent Employers to be anxious to get such evidence in the
record Instead the Respondents contented themselves
with the testimony of James Lee which was disputed by
Leveillee that Leveillee only completed three or four
tubes per night
Under these circumstances assignment of an expen
enced welder to a cleanup detail and his termination
appear strange indeed The assertion that the timing of
these actions immediately following Leveillee s alterca
lion with Dupuis was purely coincidental is unconvinc
mg Even more unconvincing is the testimony of Longhi
that he approved Leveillee s discharge because he felt
that if a welder was being used on a cleanup detail it
was wasteful to keep him on the payroll Such a reaction
to circumstances of this nature is incredible
The testimony of the Respondent Employers wit
nesses regarding Leveillee s work performance is at van
ance with the statements which they signed at the re
quest of Dupuis Wayne L Nestler and Bruno V Longhi
concededly lacked any direct knowledge about Leveil
lee s performance Nevertheless the joint statement
which they signed with William L Scrivener explains
Leveillee s termination on October 23 as follows
On 10/22/82 he was doing a lot of walking around
the job and the little work that he did do was unsat
isfactory to myself and the General Foreman On
10/23/82 we decided to give him two hours show
up time and send him home
It may be noted further that the manner in which this
statement is drawn leaves the unmistakable impression
that Leveillee s failure to attend to work was limited to
October 22 thus contradicting the statement signed by
Scrivener alone in which he asserted that Leveillee s_
wanderings took place over a span of several days It
also contradicts Scrivener s testimony that his recom
mendation that Leveillee be terminated resulted from
the accumulation of events In addition the statement
asserts lack of satisfaction with the quality of Leveillee s
work though the quality of his work was undisputed at
the hearing and is not mentioned in the statement signed
by Scrivener alone
It cannot be overlooked that Scrivener signed both of
the statements despite the fact that he had no basis in
personal knowledge for any belief that Levefflee had
been wandering around the jobsite without justification
He conceded that he only observed Leveillee away from
his work station on one occasion and that at that time he
did not talk to Leveillee and did not know what Leveil
lee was actually doing at the time For all he knew Le
veillee might have been where Scrivener saw him in pur
suance of his work duties
Furthermore though Scrivener signed a statement that
he had observed Leveillee walking around on October
22 he testified that he did not in fact see him walking
around on that date and he was unable to fix the date of
the one occasion when he supposedly saw Leveillee
doing so
Longhi s testimony was equally unimpressive He start
ed by testifying that Leveillee wandered frequently
Probably four or five days after they d taken this test I
saw him out of his work area quite often Longhi thus
fixes the beginning of the trouble with Leveillee 2 to 3
days after Lee does Longhi testified that he spoke to
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William Scrivener about it Scrivener talked him out of
firing Levelllee At Scrivener s urging he allowed Le
veillee to be assigned to a different work area However
Longhi was vague as to the basis for his assertion that
Levelllee whom he had seen in the toolroom and on the
stairwell between the tool room and his assigned work
area was not supposed to be where he was Longhi ad
mated he did not know where Levelllee belonged be
cause he did not personally assign men to their work sta
tions He also admitted he never spoke to Levelllee
about his supposed wandering Finally the statement
signed by Longhi asserted only that Levelflee was
doing a lot of walking around the job on October 22
making no mention of prior occurrences
Of course anyone listening to Longhi s testimony had
to become greatly confused for it was never explained
why if Levelllee s work performance and conduct were
so abysmal William Scrivener would have urged Longhi
not to fire LevelIlee The Respondents witnesses present
us with a picture of Longhi who had no direct knowl
edge of Leveillee s performance deciding to fire him
and being talked out of it by Scrivener who did know
about Leveillee s work performance If this is so then
Leveillee s performance must be assumed to have been
adequate to say the least
If the testimony of the witnesses is taken at face value
then it is obvious that at most if not actually all of the
times when supervisory personnel spotted Leveillee
away from his work station they did not know whether
or not he was properly in the area where they saw him
He may have had good reason to be there or good
reason not to be working at all Leveillee testified with
out contradiction that there were times when his work
was halted because preliminary work had to be complet
ed by his partner The supervisory personnel had no
knowledge of whether or not this situation obtained at
any given time they saw Leveillee
James Lee was the Respondents strongest witness
However I am compelled to take into consideration (be
sides Leveillee s greater credibility) the fact that Local
237 has provided Lee with employment from time to
time and the fact that Local 237 paid his expenses in at
tending the hearing including travel to Connecticut from
his home in Florida
After Lee concluded his testimony Leveillee returned
to the witness stand and flatly contradicted Lee s testi
mony about his criticism of Leveillee s work Leveillee
testified that he and Lee got along very well and Lee
never said anything to him about his not working fast
enough
I credit Leveillee s testimony and discount that of the
Respondent s witnesses with respect to Leveillee s wan
denng and assertedly insufficient work performance The
evidence is undisputed that Leveillee s work was of ac
ceptable quality even Lee who of all the Respondents
witnesses appeared most hostile to Leveillee reluctantly
conceded that the work was acceptable The Respond
ents witnesses testified to their long relationship with
Dupuis Scrivener in fact is a member of Local 237
They work with Dupuis in obtaining men for their jobs
and they described Dupuis undoubtedly correctly as a
conscientious man who was frequently on the jobsites to
make sure the work was moving in other words he was
helpful in keeping the work moving on time and enforc
ing discipline Dupuis stature among the workmen was
therefore of more than passing concern to them As
noted Lee one of the most important of the Respond
ents witnesses was called to the job through Local 237
and was dependent on Local 237 for further work his
expenses at the hearing were borne by Local 237
While there were numerous and serious contradictions
in the testimony of the Respondents witnesses the sole
contradiction which they were able to point to in Leveil
lee s testimony related to his initial assertion which he
later denied is that the had used a mirror on a portion of
the job Testimony was offered that a mirror was not
needed on any portion of the job However the point is
insignificant and has no bearing on the major issues of
this case It did not undermine his credibility as far as I
was concerned
I find that the reason advanced by Respondent Em
ployer for the discharge of Leveillee is pretextual and I
infer that the reason for discharge is in truth the one
advanced by Leveillee 6
3 Leveillee s actions and the effect of Sections 7
and 9(a) of the Act
Respondent International contends that Leveillee s ac
tions are not protected because he was not engaged in
concerted activity and because his connduct would in
any event be cause to deny him the protection of Section
7 I find the Union in violation of the Act regardless of
... the question of whether Leveillee s conduct is protected
by it as I explain below but in view of current attention
being given by the Board to the question of what consti
tutes concerted activity the International s contention
merits discussion
In his conference with Dupuis Leveillee was raising
questions pertinent to the conditions of employment of
himself and others at the jobsite His conduct appears to
have been improper but also appears to have been pro
yoked by the attitude of indifference on the part of those
to whom he was putting his questions including Dupuis
at first Improper behavior in the course of pursuing Sec
tion 7 rights has been deemed excusable to a limited
degree 7 In any event many of the men were like Le
veillee from areas other than that of the jobsite These
included besides Leveillee his own immediate foreman
James Lee and the superintendent of the night shift
Bruno V Longhi Leveillee therefore properly raised
question for himself and on behalf of the other out of
area workmen The supervisory personnel who might
reasonably have been expected to answer his questions
did not supply answers and did not encourage his inquir
ies
While the Board has recently in Myers Industries 268
NIRB 493 (1984) restricted the interpretation of what
constitutes concerted activity it expressly reaffirmed the
concept that the attempted implementation of a collec
6 NLRB v Wright Line 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) affd 662 F 2d 899 (1st
Cif 1981) cert denied 455 U S 989 (1982)
7 Postal Service 250 NLRB 4 (1980)
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 967
tive bargaining agreement by an individual is concerted
activity in line with the holding of Interboro Contractors
157 NLRB 1295 1298 (1966) enfd 388 F 2d 495 (2d Cir
1967) Of course the International points out that at the
time LevelIlee approached Dupuis he already knew the
provisions of the agreement and that he therefore ap
proached Dupuis only for the purpose of abusing him I
do not so find At the time Levelllee approached Dupuis
he had not received any answer to his inquiries from any
authoritative source and he was only checking what he
heard from his fellow workmen who might well have
been wrong Nobody had seen the contract Levelllee
was seeking specific authoritative information about ex
pense reimbursement A justifiable inquiry is as much
within the rule of Interboro Contractors as attempted en
forcement of a known contractual provision
Accordingly I find Leveillee s inquiry to have been
concerted activity and protected by Section 7 of the
Act
However Local 237 and the International would be
answerable even if purely personal considerations had
motivated Leveillee The duty of fair representation
toward all employees derives from Section 9(a) of the
Act A union which is recognized as the exclusive bar
gaining agent of employees in a bargaining unit has a
correlative responsibility to all of the employees in that
unit whether or not they are members of the union to
represent them fairly and equally 8 When encouragement
of membership in a labor organization is the foreseeable
result of conduct of union causation which affects an em
ployee s status as an employee Section 8(b)(2) of the Act
is violated When a union s actions cause a forfeiture of
an employee s contract status in relation to other em
ployees of the unit thereby exceeding any legitimate
union purpose Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act is violated
Unions and their agents do not have
an open season to affect an employee s employ
ment status for any reason at all—personal arbi
trary unfair capricious and the like—merely be
cause the moving consideration does not involve
the specific union membership or activities of the
affected employee 9
C The Liability of Local 237 for Violation of the
Duty of Fair Representation
Upon his discharge Leveillee did not proceed through
John Sullivan the shop steward whom he believed to be
unsympathetic and uncooperative Instead he filed the
written grievance quoted above by mail with the Local
There it was received and acted on by David Dupuis
Even if we assume arguendo that Dupuis did not cause
Leveillee s termination Local 237 has to be found liable
for violation of its obligation to afford Leveillee fair rep
resentation
Though Dupuis testified that no one else was available
in the Local organization to process Leveillee s griev
8 Wallace Corp v NLRB 323 U S 248 (1944) Vaca v Sipes 386 U S
171 (1967)
9 Miranda Fuel Co 140 NLRB 181 188 (1962) enf denied 326 F 2d
172 (2d Cir 1963)
ance he did not in any event feel the slightest corn
punction about handling it despite the fact that he had
had a row with Leveillee which by his own testimony
upset him throughout the ensuing weekend and caused
him to file charges with the International against Leveil
lee These circumstances however required him to for
bear from handling the grievance for the possibility (I
am tempted to say the certainty) of his hostility toward
Leveillee and his divided loyalty made his handling of
the grievance a clear abuse of discretion The permeat
ing effect of his dual role precluded an objective deter
'lunation 10
This is apparent from what actually happened the
danger was realized Dupuis investigation was complet
ed in a matter of minutes without an interview of Leveil
lee though a full statement of the facts was not set forth
in the grievance letter Dupuis interviews with Respond
ent Employer s supervisory personnel were so perfuncto
ry as to amount to acquiescence on his part in the posi
tons adopted by those supervisors and foremen instead
of actual processing of the grievance This is apparent
from his ready acceptance of and filing with the Interna
tonal of conflicting written statements from the supervi
sors whom he interviewed The discrepancies between
the written statements furnished by management person
nel were such as would have caused a conscientious and
unbiased interviewer to probe the facts more deeply
Dupuis failure to do so is consistent with his having pre
judged the issue and that fact is sufficient by itself to re
quire redress for Leveillee regardless of the reason for
the prejudgment If Dupuis was unaware of the contra
dictions then he was careless if he was aware then he
was guilty of culpably overlooking the actual circum
stances of Leveillee s discharge
On November 4 Dupuis sent Leveillee a letter stating
that he had personally conducted an investigation of the
circumstances of Leveillee s discharge and that on the
basis of that investigation he believed that Leveillee had
been properly discharged for cause and that the Union
would therefore take no further action in the matter
Such perfunctory processing violates the duty of fair
representation as much as his ignoring his own dual role
in the case 11
Of course the aura of bad faith which overhangs the
investigation by Dupuis by reason of the deficiencies just
noted is as nothing compared to the disapproval which
must be registered when cognizance is taken of what I
find to be the underlying basic fact of this case that
Dupuis caused Leveillee s discharge How could the Re
spondent Employer not have felt perfectly free to dis
charge Leveillee when the business manager of the
Union was inciting its misconduct ? What did it have to
fear when that same business manager processed Level]
lee s grievance? Whatever view is taken of Dupuis ac
tons the violation of the duty of fair representation is
established 12
1 ° Three Hundred South Grand Co 257 NLRB 1397 1399 (1981)
Glass Blowers Assn Local 106 (Owens Illinois) 240 NLRB 324
(1979)
i2 Operating Engineers Local 139 (C F Kalupa) 256 NLRB 531 (1981)
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I do not find violation of the Act by reason of the
filing of charges against LevetIlee by Dupuis However
justifiable in Leveillee s mind his conduct may have
been it nevertheless appears to have been provocative It
cannot be concluded from the evidence adduced at the
hearing that Dupuis was not within proper bounds in
filing the charges His ire at Leveillee is relied on by the
General Counsel as evidence of his motivation for failure
to accord Leveillee proper representation but that evi
dence of necessity tends to establish that Dupuis was sin
cere in believing at least some of Leveillee s conduct was
censurable
D The Liability of the International for Violation of
the Duty of Fair Representation
The consolidated complaint seeks to impose derivative
liability on the part of the Respondent International for
violation of the duty of fair representation on an agency
theory contending that as the principal of Local 237 it
is liable for the Local s failure to process Leveillee s
grievance In addition direct liability is claimed to exist
by reason of the involvement of Henry W Nacey an
International vice president The Respondent Interna
bong disputes liability on either theory
Undoubtedly the mere relationship of affiliation be
tween international unions and their locals is not by
itself sufficient basis for holding the internationals liable
for the actions of the locals 13 In this case however
other factors are present which support such liability
The constitutional structure of the International Broth
erhood and its Local affiliates must also be noted The
constitution of the International vests in its executive
council authority to designate district and local lodge
trade or work jurisdiction and geographical jurisdiction
and power to consolidate districts or local lodges Au
tonomy is reserved to the subordinate bodies of the
International in the following language
[E]xcept to the extent necessary to accomplish such
purposes the subordinate bodies of the Brotherhood
shall have autonomy in the conduct of their affairs
including organizing activities the negotiation and
administration of collective bargaining agreements
and engaging in economic activity to that end
where not done by the International Brotherhood
itself and provided further that the International
Brotherhood shall not be responsible for any ac
lions activities or omissions of any of its subordi
nate bodies or their representatives unless the same
were authorized or directed by the International
Brotherhood
Autonomy in the negotiation and administration of
collective bargaining agreements is thus reserved to the
Locals in those situations in which the International is
not a party to the collective bargaining agreements and
does not extend to situations in which the International
itself has acted Conversely the International is responsi
ble for the actions of subordinate bodies and their repre
sentatives when authorized or directed by the Interna
13 Musicians Local 47 (American Broadcasting) 255 NLRB 386 (1981)
tional These provisions are sufficient in themselves to
support a finding that the International is responsible for
the actions of its affiliated locals 14
The constitution of the International delegates to dis
tricts and locals responsibility for implementing and ad
ministering collective bargaining agreements signed by
the International Therefore even though the Respond
ent Local 237 and the Respondent International are dis
tinct and discrete legal entities the Local is an agent of
the International as to contractual and statutory duties
arising by reason of the contracts applicable in this
case 15
The Respondent International was a party to both
agreements governing the work at the jobsite to which
Leveillee was referred by his own Local One of these
was a regional agreement negotiated by a committee
consisting of representatives of four regional locals and
Henry Nacey International vice president who acted as
chairman of the committee David Dupuis was the repre
sentative for Local 237 Local 29 to which Leveillee be
longed was one of the other locals represented on the
committee This committee negotiated an agreement enti
tled Articles of Agreement between the International
and the Northeastern States Boilermakers Employers
to which the International was a signatory and which
was effective for a term commencing on October 1
1982 and ending on September 30 1983 It contains the
provisions which are pertinent in this case the referral
provisions the disciplinary provisions invoked by Dupuis
against Leveillee and the grievance provisions under
which Leveillee sought review of his discharge
The Northeastern States articles of agreement cover
the working rules and conditions of employment for all
journeymen boilermakers and apprentices employed in
the boilermaking trade by a signatory employer includ
ing the welding work It provides that the employers
joined therein recognize the union as the sole bargaining
agent and in order to ensure the progress of the jobs
the employer in each case will furnish the local business
manager and the International headquarters with infor
mation relating to the job the site the approximate start
mg date the type of job and the approximate manpower
requirements Workmen from other sources are engaged
only when the employer s request is not filled by the
local union within 48 hours A joint referral committee is
charge with the task of assigning union members whose
names are on the out of work lists to work available at
any of the employers sites The committee s rules regu
lawns are consistent with national joint rules and stand
ards promulgated by the International The job referral
system includes a disputes mediation procedure consist
ing of a multiple step grievance procedure Under arti
cies 26 of the articles of agreement a grievance is first
considered by representatives of the local union and the
employer if not resolved within 7 days it is reduced to
writing and submitted to the International representative
and the employer It thereafter if not resolved goes to
an arbitration committee
14 Boilermakers Local 40 (Riley Stoker Construction) 197 NLRB 738
(1972)
15 Mine Workers (Garland Coal) 258 NLRB 56 (1981)
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING

969
The articles also provide for suspension and/or remov
al of members from the out of work lists for offenses
such as quitting or leaving anemployer s job without the
approval of the employer and the business manager
The other agreement was the National Power Genera
tion Maintenance Agreement which provided for the
maintenance repair and replacement of parts and ren
ovation work in various plants The bargaining unit con
sisted of boilermaker employees of the employer em
ployed for such purposes in plants within the jurisdiction
of the International It provided that wage rates were to
be as set forth in the current labor agreement of the affil
late and the employer and contained a multiple step
gnevance procedure
The first step s of the grievance procedure under the
Power Generation Maintenance Agreement was a con
ference between the employer s supervisor and the local
union shop steward who is appointed by the business
manager the second step is between the business repre
sentative and the supervisor at the jobsite The third step
is between the International representative and the em
ployer s supervisor for labor relations and all subequent
steps are at progressively higher levels and directly in
volve the International
The evidence establishes that the International had
knowledge of and ratified the actions of Local 237
whose procedures depnved Leveillee of fair representa
tion Already liable by reason of its constitutional struc
ture the International must be held liable on the agency
theory for this reason as well
The same evidence which establishes knowledge and
ratification also establishes the International s direct par
ticipation in the deprivation of fair representation to Le
veillee It is thus directly liable for its own actions and
omissions The International became directly involved
when Dupuis and Leveillee filed their charges against
each other Though Dupuis contacted International s
vice president Henry W Nacey at his office in Virginia
Beach Virginia on the first business morning following
his confrontation with Leveillee and received advice
from Nacey when Leveillee sought Nacey s help he
found him difficult to reach and unsympathetic At first
Nacey did not respond to his telephone calls When Le
veillee succeeded in contacting him it was apparent to
Leveillee that Nacey was already familiar with the situa
tion (Of course this was through Dupuis ) Nacey sug
gested to Leveillee that the charges and countercharges
which he and Dupuis had filed against each other would
probably be resolved in the informal hearing provided
for in the rules He was right At a meeting presided
over by Rober Whitcher the president of Local 237 Le
veillee and Dupuis mutually agreed to drop the charges
against each other and Dupuis apologized Thereafter
Nacey wrote to Leveillee asserting that he had investi
gated and had ascertained that Dupuis had followed the
proper procedure in processing his grievance and that
based on the evidence Leveillee s discharge was just
fled His letter is quoted above
The file which Nacey had available to him contained
the contradictory statements obtained by Dupuis from
Scrivener Nestler and Longhi which were attachments
to Dupuis letter of November 4 Leveillee s letter to
Dupuis dated November 12 and the letter which Leveil
lee wrote to the chairman of the employers negotiating
committee and to Nacey dated November 19 attempting
to invoke the appeal procedure under the joint rules The
availability of the file to Nacey his concession that he
had investigated it and the tenor of his reply to Le
veillee dated November 22 establish complete familian
ty on his part with all the proceedings
Nacey s status as adviser to Dupuis and thus a partici
pant in some aspects of the matter is troublesome but
the frivolous manner in which he concluded or said he
concluded that no further action on Leveillee s behalf
was warranted is even more troublesome His response
to Leveillee was ambiguous in its assertion that he had
investigated the file He did not say he and investigat
ed the facts of the case His assertion that based on the
evidence it was determined that Leveillee s discharge
was for just cause is an ambiguous evasion of the respon
sibility which rested on Nacey it is not clear whether he
concluded that discharge was for cause on the basis of
his personal review of the evidence or whether he
simply found that Dupuis had reviewed the evidence in
arriving at his own determination His conclusion that
proper procedure had been followed ignored Dupuis
clear conflict of interest and lacked candor in failing to
disclose to Leveillee the fact that Dupuis had consulted
him on October 25 and that he had given advice to
Dupuis to proceed with filing of charges against Leveil
lee He is also at fault in failing as Dupuis had failed to
permit Leveillee any opportunity to explain his side of
the case Even had Dupuis failure to interview Leveillee
been excusable Nacey would have been obliged to
afford Leveillee opportunity to be heard Nacey was in a
different position from Dupuis Even had he not previ
ously counseled Dupuis and even if we disregarded the
contradictory evidence on which Dupuis based his con
elusion which Nacey should have seen special care was
still required on Nacey s part in view of the fact that Le
veillee and Dupuis had filed charges against each other
raising a possibility of bias on Dupuis part The very
issue before Nacey was the validity of the conclusions
drawn by Dupuis Extreme care was obviously needed in
a situation in which at the local level an adversary of the
member passes upon his grievance and then at the
appeal level an International vice president who had
counseled the adversary passes upon the propriety of the
adversary s handling of the grievance
Having intervened in the affair the International had
an obligation to proceed fairly and impartially It patent
ly did not do so Accordingly besides its liability as pnn
cipal of Local 237 it is directly liable by reason of its
own actions 16
16 I reject Respondent International s argument that Nacey s actions
amounted to nothing more than a voluntary investigation on his part per
formed as a favor to Leveillee Nacey owed a duty to Leveilllee both
because of his prior counseling of Dupuis creating a correlative duty to
Leveillee and because as Nacey himself recognized in his letter of No
vember 22 the investigation of Leveillee s complaint was a matter within
the province of his office
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respond
ent have a close intimate and substantial relationship to
trade traffic and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob
structmg commerce and the free flow of commerce
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent Combustion Engineering Inc is an em
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Respondent International Brotherhood of Boiler
makers Local 237 and Respondent International Broth
erhood of Boilermakers Iron Shipbuilders Blacksmiths
Forgers and Helpers are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 Respondents International and Local 237 represent
ed for purposes of collective bargaining a unit of which
Roger Levefflee was a member consisting of all Re
spondent Employers journeymen boilermakers and ap
prentices performing maintenance repair replacement
and renovation work at United Illuminating Company
Bridgeport Connecticut but excluding general supenn
tendents superintendents assistant superintendents office
and clerical employees watchmen or other professional
or supervisory employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act
4 Respondent Combustion Engineenng Inc violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by imposing less desir
able and more onerous working conditions on Roger Le
vefflee on October 22 1982 and by discharging him on
October 23 1982
5 Respondent Local 237 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act by refusing to process a grievance concerning
his discharge on behalf of Levefflee beyond the initial
first written step in violation of the duty of fair represen
tation which it owed to him and to all employees whom
it represents for reasons which were unfair arbitrary in
vidious and a breach of the duty owed by Local 237 to
the employees whom it represents
6 Respondent Local 237 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act by causing Respondent Combustion
Engineering Inc to impose less desirable and more
oerous working conditions on Roger Levefflee and to
discharge Levefflee and by imposing a 15 day work re
ferral suspension penalty on Levefflee thus preventing
other employees from hiring him
7 Respondent International violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act by imposing a 15 day referral penalty
on Levefflee
8 Respondent International violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act by refusing to process to arbitration a gnev
ance on behalf of Levefflee concerning his discharge and
by violating the duty of fair representation which it
owed to him in failing to represent him for reasons
which were unfair arbitrary invidious and a breach of
the duty owed by it to employees whom it represents
9 The unfair labor practices found herein affect com
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
10 The Respondents did not engage in any unfair
labor practices other than those found herein
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents engaged in unfair
labor practices I recommend that they be directed to
cease and desist from that and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act I
,
recommend
that Respondent Local 237 and Repsondent International
be directed to notify Respondent Combustion Engineer
mg Inc that the Respondents have no objection to Le
vefflee s employment by the Employer I shall also rec
ommend that the Respondents make Levefflee whole for
any loss of earnings which he may have suffered by
reason of his discharge on October 23 1982 and his sus
pension for 15 days from the out of work list for job re
ferrals with backpay to be computed in the manner pre
scribed in F W , Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950)
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre
scribed in Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) and
Isis Plumbing Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
In addition I recommend that Respondent Combus
tion Engineering Inc be required to expunge from its
records any reference to the unlawful discharge of
Roger Levefflee and that Respondents Local 237 and
International Brotherhood be required to expunge form
their records any references to the disciplinary actions
taken against Roger Levefflee by the Respondent Em
ployer or by themselves particularly his suspension from
the job referral list and that all of the Respondents pro
vide Levefflee with written notice of such expunction
and inform him that his unlawful discipline and discharge
will not be used as a basis for future action against him
In view of my factual determination that the conduct
of the management personnel of Respondent Combustion
Engineering Inc toward Leveillee was wrongfully in
duced by the business manager of Local 237 and that he
was not discharged for good cause by the Respondent
Employer the issue posed for determination in the gnev
ance proceeding initiated by Levefflee as to whether his
discharge was wrongful is resolved in Levefflee s favor
in this proceeding Accordingly I do not recommend
that Local 237 be directed to proceed with the process
ing of Levefflee s grievance inasmuch as the relief which
would have been appropriate therein following the reso
lution of the issue in Levefflee s favor will already have
been provided for in the recommended Order herein
The recommended Order provides that the Respondent
Combustion Engineering Inc be required to inform Le
vefflee in writing that he will be considered eligible for
employment in the future at any of its worksites on a
nondiscriminatory basis if he should choose to apply for
employment at any of them and that it will make him
whole for wages lost by him as a result of his discharge
jointly and severally with the other Respondents and
that the Respondent Local 237 and the Respondent
International be required to inform Levefflee in writing
that he will be considered eligible for employment in the
future at worksites at which employers have requested
the labor organizations to supply welders on a nondis
cnmmatory basis
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 971
In its postheanng brief the Respondent Employer has
suggested that Local 237 and the International be held
primarily liable for damages if I find that Section
8(b)(2) and Section 8(a)(3) of the Act have been violated
since there is a deficiency of evidence that its actions
were motivated by any considerations prohibited by the
Act I do not reccommend adoption of its suggestion in
view of the very explicit comment in Miranda Fuel Co
To the extent however that an employer partici
pates in such union s arbitrary action against an em
ployee the employer himself violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act This would obtain for example
where for' arbitrary or irrelevant reasons a statuto
ry bargaining representative attempts to cause an
employee s discharge and the employer then be
comes party to such violation of Section 7 rights by
acceding to the union s efforts 17
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
ed"
ORDER
A Respondent International Brotherhood of Boiler
makers Local 237 and Respondent International Brother
hood of Boilermakers Iron Shipbuilders Blacksmiths
Forgers and Helpers their officers agents and repre
sentatives shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Causing or attempting to cause or requesting di
rectly or indirectly Combustion Engineering Inc or any
other employer to impose less desirable or more onerous
working conditions upon or to discharge or otherwise
discriminate against Roger Leveillee or any other em
ployee on grounds other than failure of such employee
to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees urn
formly required by the Respondent as a condition of ac
quiring or retaining membership
(b) Failing or refusing to process grievances of em
ployees or afford them fair representation in the event of
discharge or other discipline imposed by any employer
(c) Imposing a work referral penalty on any employee
and thereby causing employers to refuse to employ them
except as provided in the constitutions and bylaws of the
Respondent labor organizations
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc
mg employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to ef
fectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Combustion
Engineering Inc make Roger Leveillee whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the dis
17 Miranda Fuel Co 140 NLRB 181 185 186 (1962) enf denied 326
F 2d 172 (2d Cir 1963)
18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poses
crimmation against him in the manner set forth in the
section of this decision entitled The Remedy
(b) Notify Respondent Combustion Engineering Inc
in writing that they have no objection to Leveillee s em
ployment by the Employer and furnish a copy of such
notification to Leveillee
(c) Expunge from their records any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Leveillee and the imposition upon
him of the work referral suspension and notify him in
writing that this has been done and that his unlawful dis
charge and the other unlawful discipline imposed upon
him shall not be used as a basis for future action against
him
(d) Inform Leveillee in writing that he will be consid
ered eligible for employment in the future at worksites
for which employers have requested them to supply per
sonnel on a nondiscriminatory basis
(e) Post at their business offices copies of the attached
notice marked Appendix A 19 Copies of the notice on
forms provided by the Officer in Charge of Subregion
39 after being signed by the Respondent s authorized
representative shall be posted by the Respondent imme
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where no
tices to members are customarily posted Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other
material
(0 Forward a sufficient number of signed copies of the
attached notice marked Appendix A to the Officer in
Charge of Subregion 39 for transmittal to Respondent
Combustion Engineering Inc which will post same at its
place of business and at all places within the geographi
cal jurisdiction of Local 237 where notices to its employ
ees are customarily posted
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
B Respondent Combustion Engineering Inc Windsor
Connecticut its officers agents successors and assigns
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing employment to or otherwise discriminat
ing against any employee or applicant for employment in
order to avoid potential displeasure on the part of Local
237 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers or any
other labor organization or on the part of their officials
except to the extent permitted a valid union security
agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with re
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
19 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Na
tional Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Inform Roger Levelllee in writing that he will be
considered eligible for employment in the future at its
worksites on a nondiscriminatory basis
(b) Post copies of the attached notice marked Appen
dix A at all places within the jurisdiction of Local 237
where notices to its employees are customarily posted 20
(c) Jointly and severally with Respondent Local 237
and Respondent International make Roger Levelllee
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him in the manner set
forth in the section of this decision entitled The
Remedy
(d) Preserve and on request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay
roll records social security payment records timecards
personnel records and reports and all other records nec
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(e) Post at its offices at Windsor Connecticut copies
of the attached notice marked Appendix B Copies of
the notice on forms provided by the Officer in Charge
for Subregion 39 after being signed by the Respondent s
authorized representative shall be posted by the Re
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or
covered by any other material
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
20 See fn 19 supra
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or
dered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT discharge refuse employment to or
otherwise discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment in order to avoid the possible displeas
ure to Local 237 International Brotherhood of Boiler
makers or any other labor organization or their officials
except to the extent permitted by a valid union security
agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner Interfere
with restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act
WE WILL inform Roger Levelllee in writing that he
will be considered eligible for employment in the future
at our worksites where work is available on a nondis
cnminatory basis and jointly and severally with Local
237 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and with
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron ship
builders Blacksmiths Forgers and Helpers WE WILL
make him whole with interest for any loss of pay and
other losses he may have suffered as a result of our un
lawful discrimination and his unlawful discharge
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING INC