Frank Briscoe Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 2, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 13 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

FRANK BRISCOE INCORPORATED
Frank Briscoe Incorporated and Raymond F. Milton.
Case 6-CA-12133
January 2, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On September 11, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Frank
Briscoe Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Insert the following after the first sentence in the
remedy section of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision:
"(See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).)"
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the
clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc.. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing before an administrative law judge at
which we were given the opportunity to present our
witnesses, evidence, and arguments, and to cross-
examine witnesses against us, the decision has been
announced that we have violated the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by failing to recall and
rehire ironworkers we laid off on February 13, 1979,
after some of them thereafter filed charges against us
with the United States Equal Employment Opportuni-
ty Commission. We have therefore been ordered to
post this notice and do what it says.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to recall or rehire
any laid-off employees (or threaten to do so)
because they or other employees have filed
charges against us with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of your right to self-organization; to
form, join, or assist any labor organization; to
bargain collectively through representatives of
your own choosing; to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer the following persons immedi-
ate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to their
former jobs, with full rights, benefits, and emolu-
ments, just as if we had not failed and refused to
recall and rehire them on and since March 5,
1979; and WE WILL pay them, with interest, for
all wages and benefits lost because of our failure
and refusal to recall and rehire them on and after
March 5, 1979. The employees are:
Raymond Milton
James Templeton
Victor Harris
Robert Harris
Eugene Favilla
Raymond Somerville
David Moore
John Moore
FRANK BRISCOE INCORPORATED
247 NLRB No. 6
13
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 1BO()ARD
I. THiE AIIG (ill) UNIAIR I AItOR PRA( FIICIS
STAT1MI.N I 01 ITHI; CASEt
STANL. i: N. OHI.BAUM, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding' under the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.), herein called the Act,
was heard before me in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on July
23-24, 1979, with all parties participating throughout by
counsel (the Charging Party herein, Raymond F. Milton.
was represented by the General Counsel) and afforded full
opportunity to present evidence, arguments, proposed find-
ings and conclusions, and briefs. Post-trial briefs were
received from the General Counsel and Respondent herein,
Frank Briscoe Incorporated, by August 23. The transcript
and briefs have been carefully considered.
The basic issue presented is whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act by failing and refusing to reemploy
certain employees laid off as a group because, after the
layoff, some of them filed discrimination charges with the
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
testimonial demeanor of the witnesses I make the following:
FINDINDINS OF FACF
1. JURISI)ItCION
At all material times Respondent has been and is a New
Jersey corporation (with principal offices in East Orange in
that State) engaged in construction industry general con-
tracting, including the Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Conven-
lion Center (PCC) jobsite here involved. During the repre-
sentative 12-month period immediately antedating issuance
of the complaint, Respondent derived revenues exceeding
$50,000 from the performance of services in States other
than New Jersey.
I find that at all material times Respondent has been and
is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and
(7) of the Act; and that at those times International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union) has
been and is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of
the Act.
' Based upon a complaint issued against Respondent by the Regional
Director for Region 6 of the National Labor Relationls Hoard oni April 26,
1979. growing out of a charge filed by the Charging Party on March 5. as
amended ton April 20. 1979. Unless otherwise specified. all dates herein are i.
1979.
i.e.. the 7 mentioned in par. 6 of the colnplainl---viz. Raylmond Miltni.
James Templeton. Victor Harris. Robert Harris. Eugene Favil;l. Raymond
Somerville. and David Moore-plus an eighth, John Moore (added at the
hearing to the foregoing enumeration and complaint paragraph), and 4 others
(Rodenbeck, Cygnarowicz. Sines, and Jeffrey or "Jeffery") iot included in this
proceeding.
we have been instructed to weigh in favor of a witness' credibility the fact
that he is still employed by the respondent and, thus, testifies at the risk of
employer disfavor and retaliation. See Georgia Rug Mill. 131 NLRB 1304.
1305. fn. 2 (1961). enfd. as modified 308 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1962); Wirz v.
RB..C. Steel Pr'ducs. Inc.. 32 F.2d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1962).
' Without explanation. Respondent failed to produce General Foreman
Biagarelli to dispute this i ay way
A. lc'Is as Ioud
In the course of its $20 million constr uction operations at
l'CC, Respondent has employed ironworkers--ranging from
about 20-25 to around 50--tlhe vast majiority obtained
through the Union's hiring hall under its collective-bargain-
ing agreement with the Union. Although lthere is no
seniority system or requirement fio- placement or rehire, il
practice temporarily laid-off ironworkers requesting rehire
are preferentially referred back to the job by the Union.
On February 13. 1979. because of the continuation of
severely inclement weather. the PCC jobsite in effect closed
down temporarily with a general layoff. including the
temporary layoff of 12 ironworkers.-' Credited testimony of
General Counsel ironworker witnesses Cook (he ironworker
steward, who, sitce November 1977. is still in Respondent's
employ at PCC'), Milton, and Robert lHarris establishes that
at the time of the layoff, the message coliveyed to Job
Steward Cook from PCC Ironworkers Superintendent God-
win and PCC General Fortman Biagarelli' was carried by
Cook to the ironworkers that it was a general layoff because
of the bad weather and that they would be "called back".:
that General Foreman Biagarelli likewise directly assured
the laid-off men that the layoff was "just a temporary layoff
because of the weather" and that they would "all be called
back":' and that Ironworkers Superintendent Godwin fur-
ther confirmed that the layoff wvas "on account of the
weather," commenting, [it's] the weather . . you're all
good workers, what can we do." and reassuring them. "You
guys will all be called back."'
On February 14 and 16 four of the laid-off ironworkers
and also a fifth, demoted ironworker' filed discrimination
charges with EEOC; copies of these were received by
Respondent on February 22.
After the February 13 general "bad weather" layolT.
Respondent commenced hiring ironworkers on March 5.
hiring 29 between that date and April 2. However, with the
sole exception of Jeffrey (a trainee),' none of the ironworkcrs
laid off on February 13 was or has since been rehired.
although they have sought rehire.
Credited testimony of General Counsel witnesses Cook.
Harris. Milton. and Francis Hanna (union business agent
and hiring hall dispatcher) overwhelmingly establishes that
when the ironworkers figuring in the February layoff applied
for rehire. either at the jobsite or at the hiring hall, they were
See rf. 4. upru.
At least somie of the laid-off men were seasoned ironlworker for examlple,
Robert Harris had over 25 years of experience Ihere appear. no doubt Ihal
produclioll difficullies had bee experienced for weeks bhfire the Febrtar 13
layoff prinlarily because of the screlt inclemclt winter wealther. bill aso
because of sulprvisory inaldequacies and shortages of eqtlipmenl ils ell is
lack of sork due to nlloncomiplelio by other crarfts of preliminar work IThese
doi not appear to hale bell cxtraordinarl or tuIlprecedcllted ill the lcissiluides
of conlltruction during the v inler season
Sorners ille. David Moore. John Moore ald Jcffre)
Edv ard Major, demoted from frirentall aid n11t icludCd in this
proceeding
Resptndenlt explains is rehire llf Jcffre o1 IFebhruarv 27 ot te groiuld
that hIe sas laid off on February 13 because ol' i mistakenl ilprcssiol il i.at, as
a traille, he was. required. under the collective-bargaullllg agreementt, t. he
laid oI b'fire; att jourilc! matl could he laid off
DECISION
14
FRANK BRISCOE INCORPORATED
denied reemployment because of the filing of the EEOC
charges and pending resolution of those charges. Thus,
Union Business Agent Francis Hanna, a strongly persuasive
witness, testified that, although he, too, understood "it was a
temporary layoff" occasioned by the "very bad weather"
and although at least four of the laid-off ironworkers
(Milton, Favilla. and both Harrises) had specifically asked
him to refer them back when the bad weather abated, when
Respondent began calling for ironworkers about 2 weeks
later, he (Hanna) was expressly told by Respondent's Job
Superintendent Maurice Willey not to refer any of the
ironworkers figuring in the February 13 layoff "as long as
these discrimination charges were against [us] and the case
was filed with the EEOC," fearing that such a rehire "would
not be a good idea" and might itself establish or be used as
evidence of "definite grounds for discrimination." Under
these circumstances, the Union did not refer any of the laid-
off ironworkers, feeling that "as long as this EEOC charges
were pending . . . it was a useless gesture for [the Union] to
try to force somebody on the job that they would not hire,"
and Hanna so informed these men, insisting, however, that,
in the absence of Respondent's refusal to accept referral of
these men, he (Hanna) would have returned the men to the
job upon abatement of the bad weather. It is uncontested
that this has been the only occasion on which Respondent
has refused to rehire any laid-off employees or has so
indicated and that only with reference to the group including
the EEOC complainants has Respondent-before or since
then-taken the position to deny laid-off employees rehire.
All eight of the laid-off employees here involved"' also
applied directly at the jobsite (as was also customary) for
rehire. When Job Steward Cook so apprised Union Business
Representative Hanna, Cook was likewise informed by
Hanna that Respondent "would not rehire the 12 guys that
were laid off until the EEOC suit was over" and that the
hiring hall would "send them all back the next day if Briscoe
would accept them." Subsequently, in May, at a conference
with EEOC officials or representatives, Respondent's Job
Superintendent Willey confirmed that the ironworkers laid
off on February 13 would not be rehired "as long as the
EEOC case .. is] pending.""
Laid-off ironworkers Robert Harris and Raymond F.
Milton-each, to my observation, impressive witnesses-
confirmed that when they returned to the job (as well as to
the hiring hall) seeking rehire after the bad-weather layoff,
they were refused rehire so long as the EEOC charges were
pending. Harris (who is white and had filed no EEOC
charge) was told by Respondent's Ironworker Superinten-
dent Godwin in March (when Respondent was hiring other
ironworkers), "We're not hiring on account of we have these
charges pending with the EEOC . . . and we can't hire
See fn. 2. supra.
Although. according to Job Steward Cook, at this conference Willey also
took the position that "some of the men were laid off because [we were not]
satisfied with their performance." Cook credibly insists that at no time had
any supervisor or foreman ever indicated to him any dissatisfaction with the
job performance of any of these men, and, to the contrary, he (Cook) attests as
an experienced ironworker that the men had been "doing a good job,"
considering the adverse conditions of inclement weather, inadequate equip-
ment. and supervisory shortcomings.
' Except trainee Jeffrey, as explained in fn. 9, supra.
" Although Godwin had itndicated displeasure or disappointment with job
progress a fair reading of the record as a whole indicates that this was
anybody back, if we hire you back, we have to hire the
blacks back." In no way had Godwin ever criticized Harris'
job performance-on the contrary, he had praised it; nor did
Godwin on this occasion comment adversely (or at all) on
his job performance. When Harris went to the hiring hall, he
was given the same message by Hanna: "If they hire you
people back, they'll have to hire the blacks back."
Similarly, Raymond F. Milton (likewise white and not
among those who had filed EEOC charges) was told by
Hanna at the hiring hall that he had been "asked by Briscoe
not to send any of the whites down that had been laid off
with the blacks because of the EEOC charges," and, when
Milton visited the jobsite in March to resume his job after
the bad weather, he and Harris were told by Godwin that
they could not be rehired, because "the blacks have filed
EEOC charges and I cannot hire you back." Nor has his job
performance as a journeyman ironworker in any way been
criticized.
Conceding that, although it has hired numerous iron-
workers since early March, it has not rehired any of the
ironworkers laid off on February 13,'` among which were
the EEOC complianants, Respondent now defends that
action by claiming that they were all laid off because of the
poor work performance of each and with the intention on its
part not to rehire any of them. The difficulty with this
position is, however, that it is not established by substantial
credible evidence. Thus, although the testimony of Respon-
dent's Ironworkers Superintendent Godwin that he observed
these individuals in effect soldiering on the job is uncontra-
dicted so far as it goes, in the nature of things such alleged
subjective observations, constituting at best an alleged state
of mind, cannot be contradicted." Without explanation,
Respondent has failed to produce any of the foremen or
immediate supervisors of the men in question to bear out the
contention that they were less than reasonably diligent. The
contrary credited testimony of Job Steward Cook, supra. as
to their job performance, will be recalled, as will the credited
testimony of Harris and Milton. Furthermore, Respondent
has failed to produce or to account for its nonproduction of
the individual production or individual job performance
records or personnel files of any of these individuals." It is
also difficult to accept Respondent's current contention that,
although it was dissatisfied for several months with the job
performance of these men, it did not discharge, warn,
admonish, or in any way indicate its dissatisfaction to any of
them. Moreover, concededly, even on February 13 Respon-
dent did not discharge any of them or voice any dissatisfac-
tion with their job performance; and, on the contrary,
Respondent did not oppose their application for unemploy-
ment insurance benefits, but supported it by officially
substantially premised upon perceived shortcomings of supervisors and
foremen rather than of individual rank-and-file ironworkers. undoubtedly
attenuated by the inclement weather-a perennial bane of the construction
industry, particularly during the winter-and other matters. including
technical problems and equipment difficulties.
" We have been instructed that where a party fails, without adequate
explanation. to produce records within his control the conclusion is warranted
that their contents do not bear out his contentions United States v. Denver
and Rio Grande Railroad Company. 191 U.S. 84. 91-92 (1903); N.L.R.B. v
Sam Wallick. t al. d/b/a Wallick and Schwahn Company 198 F.2d 477. 483
(3d Cir. 1952).
15
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representing to the authorities that they had been separated
not for cause, but for lack of work." Finally, there is here no
charge or contention that the employees in question were
laid off in violation of the Act; it is Respondent's failure and
refusal to recall or rehire them after the filing of the EEOC
charges which is here in question.
B. Rationale
There is here no substantial credible demonstration that at
the time of the February 13 layoff Respondent had deter-
mined not to rehire any of the 12 laid-off employees; to the
contrary, credited proof establishes that the layoff was only
because of the continued severely inclement weather, tempo-
rarily precluding effective construction operations. Nor is
there any substantial credible evidence that the job produc-
tion or performance of any of the specific individuals laid off
on February 13 was such as to have resulted in the
determination to terminate or not rehire or recall him when
weather conditions abated. No records have been produced
such as would establish work inadequacy specifically linked
to any of the laid-off employees here. Respondent's Iron-
workers Superintendent Godwin concedes that he never
warned or even spoke to any of the laid-off employees
regarding work performance, nor is there any showing or
claim that any supervisor or foreman did. Credited, mutual-
ly corroborative testimony of the employee witnesses estab-
lishes that they were expressly told by Respondent's respon-
sible officials that the layoff was temporary, on account of
the weather, and that they would be recalled. Credited,
mutually corroborative testimony of these witnesses, forti-
fied by credited testimony of Union Business Agent Hanna,
further establishes that Respondent's officials told them, as
well as Hanna, that the reason Respondent was not recalling
them to their jobs was because some in that group had filed
EEOC charges.''
In view of the foregoing, I cannot but conclude that the
reason for Respondent's failure to recall the laid-off employ-
ees here was because of the filing of the EEOC charges,
" There is no justification for assuming that Respondent wished to falsify
information officially furnished by it to the unemployment insurance
governmental authorities, undoubtedly a serious offense. Since intent to
commit such an offense should not be presumed (cf. People v. Leavitt. 301
N.Y. 113, 117, 92 N.E. 2d 915 (1950); 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2511 (3d ed.
1940)), according Respondent the benefit of a presumption of innocence, I
take Respondent at its word in its official reports that the employees were
separated not for cause, but for lack of work.
' I cannot accept Respondent's astonishing contention that the action of
the employees, all black persons, who filed EEOC charges may be considered
at best or worst to have constituted protected concerted activity-if at all-
only with regard to other black employees in the February 13 laid-off group,
since their action was invasive of the status of the white employees and could
only have succeeded at the cost of the whites. Such a contention smacks of
being either naive or mischievous. Regardless of who filed the EEOC charges,
the reason, as here found, why no person-black or white-with the sole
exception of trainee Jeffrey (fns. 2 and 9, supra ), in the group laid off on
February 13 was recalled or rehired was that some black persons in that group
had filed EEOC charges, thereby in Respondent's view (as expressed by its
officials to Union Business Representative Hanna, as well as to Cook, Robert
Harris, and Milton) rendering Respondent in some unexplained way legally
"vulnerable" if it rehired any of that laid-off group, black or white. It is clear,
however, that protected concerted activity under the Act, and its remediation,
have no such color lines as Respondent attempts to draw. Even if the black
employees who filed the EEOC charges intended thereby to benefit only
themselves and other black persons, nevertheless, their action, as treated by
Respondent, had a ripple effect upon the job status of their white fellow
which the Board has held constitutes protected concerted
activity under the Act-regardless of the merit of those
charges. Sioux City Foundry, 241 NLRB 481 (1979); General
Teamsters Local Union No. 528, etc. (Theatres Service
Company), 237 NLRB 258 (1978); McLean Trucking Co.,
231 NLRB 706 (1977); C & W Super Markets, Inc., 231
NLRB 403, enfd. 581 F.2d 618 (7th Cir. 1978); King
Soopers, Inc., 222 NLRB 1011 (1976).
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state
the following:
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Jurisdiction is properly asserted in this proceeding.
2. By failing and refusing to recall and rehire its
employees Raymond Milton, James Templeton, Victor
Harris, Robert Harris, Eugene Favilla, Raymond Somer-
ville, David Moore, and John Moore, and each of them, at
any and all times since March 5, 1979, for the reason that
some of said employees had filed charges against Respon-
dent with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission subsequent to Respondent's temporary layoff of
said employees on February 13, 1979, under the circum-
stances detailed and found in section III, supra, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and continues
to interfere with, restrain, and coerce, its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act
and has thereby violated and continues to violate Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
3. Said unfair labor practices and each of them have
affected, affect, and unless permanently restrained and
enjoined will continue to affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act."
THE REMEDY
Having been found to have engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of the Act, Respondent should be
ordered to cease from continuing such violations, and,
employees laid off together with them, and, particularly since Respondent
took the position that it would not recall any-black or white-to their jobs
because of and during the pendency of the EEOC charges, all were affected. If
accepted, Respondent's contention that the black persons could only succeed
with EEOC at the expense of the white persons would-precisely the same as
if white persons, instead of black persons, had been discrimination complain-
ants before EEOC-leave without remedy all discriminatees other than those
of the same color as the EEOC complainants, even though included in the
group refused rehire because of the filing of the EEOC charges. All employees
qua employees have an indivisible common interest under the Act, free from
color or other invidious distinction, in assuring that no employee or group of
employees is discriminated against in his job. When one group of employees
acts to vindicate that right, its action constitutes concerted protected activity
under the Act on behalf of all employees. Fragmentation of that right along
racial lines, as here urged, would be thoroughly destructive of the right and its
meaningful exercise, inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the Act as
well as other national policy, and wholly intolerable. Under the circumstances
shown, unsubtracted remediation of Respondent's retaliatory response to its
employees' lawful pursuit of that right is plainly required. Cf. Interboro
Cotracors, Inc.. 157 NLRB 1295 (1966). enfd., 388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967);
McLean Trucking Company. 231 NLRB 706, 708 (1977); C & W Super
Markets, Inc.. 231 NLRB 403, 405 (1977), enfd. 581 F.2d 618 (7th Cir. 1978);
Super 7ire Corporation. 227 NLRB 949, 955 (1977): Alleluia Cushion Co. Inc.,
221 NLRB 999 (1975).
" Respondent's proposed findings and conclusions are allowed only to the
extent consistent with the findings and conclusions hereinabove made.
16
FRANK BRISCOE INCORPORATED
additionally, to take the affirmative remedial measures
usually required in cases of this nature, including job
restoration of the unlawfully displaced employees, together
with backpay and interest computed as explicated by the
Board in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Any
contention or implication by Respondent that remediation
be restricted to Respondent's black employees, since they
alone could have been affected by the EEOC charges which
they filed, is summarily rejected for reasons already ex-
plained (fn. 16, supra). Respondent should be required to
preserve and make available to the Board's agents its records
for backpay computation and compliance determination.
The usual informational posting of a notice to employees
should also be required.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent, Frank Briscoe Incorporated, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents. successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to (or threatening so to do) recall
to Respondent's employment and to rehire into their former
jobs any temporarily laid-off employees because such em-
ployees or any of them have filed on instituted a charge or
charges against Respondent with the United States Equal
Opportunity Commission relating to their jobs or job status
with or layoff by Respondent.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor
organization; to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing; to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; or to refrain from any and all such activities to
the extent permissible under law.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the following persons immediate, full, and
unconditional reinstatement to their former jobs (or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs) with
Respondent, without prejudice to any of their rights,
,' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
privileges, benefits, and emoluments, including but not
limited to any wage rate increases to comparable employees
on and at any time since March 5, 1979; and make said
employees whole for any loss of income, benefits, and
emoluments (including overtime, holiday and vacation pay,
time off, hospitalization, medical, and other insurance
claims and benefits, if applicable, and expenditures in lieu
thereof during any noncoverage period on and since March
5, 1979, while not recalled or rehired by Respondent),
together with interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy
portion of the Decision of which this Order forms a part.
The employees are:
Raymond Milton
James Templeton
Victor Harris
Robert Harris
Eugene Favilla
Raymond Somerville
David Moore
John Moore
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, wage rate and other records, work schedules,
construction data, records and reports, production reports
and data, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records and entries
necessary to determine the amounts of backpay and other
sums and benefits due under and the extent of compliance
with the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Convention
Center jobsite, at its office and hiring location there, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ' Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, after being signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted in said premises by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. Respondent shall also sign
and supply to said Regional Director a sufficient number of
signed copies of said notice for posting at the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, union and hiring halls of International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
Local 3, AFL-CIO.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
17