GAL Construction, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 234 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GAL Construction, Inc., and Barry Kapusta. Case 6
CA- 10606
November 9, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING( AND MIEMBERS JENKINS
AND MEURPIIY
On September 5, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and counsel for the
General Counsel filed an answering brief in support
of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify his remedy.2 and to adopt his recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, GAL Construction, Inc.,
Charleroi, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc.. 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2
See Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), for rationale on
interest payments.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on June 15,
1978, pursuant to a complaint issued December 19, 1977,
alleging that Respondent, GAL Construction, Inc., vio-
lated Section 8(aX)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), referred
to herein as the Act. Respondent, in its timely filed answer,
denied committing any of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my obser-
vation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, with its princi-
pal office located in Charleroi, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
road and coal mine construction. During the 12 months
preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent
has performed services within the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania valued in excess of $50,000 for persons who are
themselves directly engaged in interstate commerce. In its
answer, Respondent admitted, and I find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent concedes, and I find, as alleged in the com-
plaint, that United Mine Workers of America, Local 1846,
referred to as the Union or UMW Local 1846, is now, and
has been at all times material to this case, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE ISSUES
On or about May 1, 1977,1 Respondent's employee, Bar-
ry Kapusta, the Charging Party herein, filed a grievance
against Respondent concerning wage rates he alleged were
due him under a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union. On May 2 Respondent and the Union held a griev-
ance meeting at which Kapusta's grievance was resolved.
The issues presented in this case are whether the evidence
shows that Respondent:
(a) Violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively in-
terrogating employee Kapusta concerning the filing of
grievances, threatening him with reprisals if he filed griev-
ances, and by ordering him to resign from the Union.
(b) Violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act by refus-
ing to assign to employee Kapusta work covered by a col-
lective-bargaining agreement and by refusing to pay him
the wage rate provided for by said contract because he
filed a grievance.
(c) Violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by refus-
ing to comply with a grievance settlement.
I All dates referred to hereinafter occurred in 1977, unless otherwise indi-
cated
234
GAL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
IV THE ALLF.GED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Between January and May Respondent employed ap-
proximately four truckdrivers, who picked up building ma-
terials and equipment, delivered them to Respondent's var-
ious jobsites, and carted away refuse from those sites. Of
the four truckdrivers, two, Barry Kapusta and William
Barr, were members of UMW Local 1846 during 1977.
Barr's membership in UMW Local 1846 dated from Au-
gust or September 1976. Kapusta joined UMW Local 1846
in November 1976, at the instance of his supervisor. An-
drew Witouski. Respondent classified Barr as a class "B"
driver, due to his ability to handle all kinds of heavy equip-
ment. Kapusta drove only triaxle tractor-trailer and stake
body trucks and was therefore given the lower class "C"
rating.
Respondent and UMW Local 1846 were parties to the
National Coal Mine Construction Agreement (referred to
herein as NCMCA) which was effective from December
23, 1974, to December 6. Respondent's employees who per-
formed construction work at UMW coal mine sites were
covered by article II, section (a), of this agreement, which
required them to be members of the Union. Article I of
that agreement limited its coverage as follows:
This Agreement covers all work related to the devel-
opment, expansion or alteration of coal mines, includ-
ing the erection of tipples and preparation plants and
other facilities placed in, on or around coal mines,
sinking of shafts, slopes, drifts, or tunnels and all other
such coal-related work that is performed by members
of the Association at or on coal lands, coal producing
and coal preparation facilities owned or held under
lease by signatories to the National Bituminous Coal
Wage Agreement of 1974 or any of them or by any
subsidiary or affiliate on the date of this Agreement,
or acquired during its term which may hereafter (dur-
ing the term of this Agreement) be put into production
or use.
GAL's employees working at construction projects not lo-
cated at UMW coal mine sites were represented under
other contracts by various AFL-CIO building and con-
struction trades unions, including the International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local 66, AFL-CIO. Some GAL
employees were members of both UMW Local 1846 and
an AFL-CIO union. Respondent assigned such dual union
members to work on UMW and AFL-CIO union jobsites
interchangeably.
In March 1977 Kapusta questioned Charles (Buck)
Rush, UMW Local 1846's president and business manager,
concerning some medical bills which Kapusta thought
should be covered by the UMW Local 1846 medical insur-
ance plan. Rush informed Kapusta that Respondent had
not made any benefit payments to the Union for Kapusta.
Rush asked Kapusta what hourly wage rate he had been
receiving and discovered that Kapusta was being paid a
$5.07 hourly wage rather than the $7.58 hourly rate called
for by the collective-bargaining agreement. At a later meet-
ing, Rush advised Kapusta to file a grievance. Kapusta
attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the wage rate discrep-
ancy with Supervisor Witouski. On May I Kapusta filed a
grievance concerning his hourly wage rate.
B. The Alleged Refusal to Bargain
1. The facts
On the afternoon of May 2, Respondent and the Union
conducted a grievance meeting. Tony Ruscitto, Respon-
dent's secretary, and Supervisor Witouski represented Re-
spondent. Rush represented the Union. Kapusta also was
present. Truckdriver Barr was present at Rush's request,
because in Rush's initial contact with Kapusta, Kapusta
had charged that Barr was not receiving the proper wage
rate. Barr remained at the meeting only a short time. He
left after informing the parties that his rate was already
straightened out and that he was receiving the proper rate.
The parties discussed Kapusta's wage rate at length. The
Union argued that under the NCMCA, employees working
at mining sites operated by companies signatory to that
contract were entitled to receive the contract wage rate. As
Respondent was a party to the NCMCA and Kapusta had
been working at Respondent's mining sites, Rush contend-
ed that Kapusta should have been paid the $7.58 hourly
wage rate provided by the contract for class C drivers.
There was some discussion of whether Kapusta was actual-
ly performing work at the Emerald site or just making de-
liveries there. The parties agreed that because Kapusta was
moving stone from place to place at the Emerald site, he
should be paid at the contract rate for days when he deliv-
ered to that site. The essence of the settlement finally
agreed upon by the parties was that Respondent would pay
Kapusta all monies due for work performed under the
NCMCA.
The basic conflict in this case concerning the grievance
settlement is whether Respondent agreed to pay Kapusta
the NCMCA rate for work performed at the Carrick site.
According to Ruscitto, no sites were specified in the settle-
ment finally agreed upon. Kapusta testified that when the
Carrick site was mentioned, Ruscitto nodded and Witouski
said, "Okay." Rush testified on direct examination that he
specified the Carrick, Emerald, and Kirby sites as being
covered under the NCMCA and Ruscitto agreed to pay
Kapusta the contract wage rate for work performed at
those sites. However, on cross-examination, Rush retreated
from his assertion that Ruscitto had specifically agreed to
pay the contract rate for the Carrick site. Rush explained
that Ruscitto had actually agreed only to the general prop-
osition that all work covered by the NCMCA would be
done at the contract wage rate. He also conceded that Rus-
citto never specifically agreed that the Carrick site was cov-
ered by the NCMCA. Instead, according to Rush, Ruscitto
nodded his head, showing understanding of Rush's argu-
ment. There is no showing that Ruscitto specifically agreed
to pay Kapusta the contract rate for his work at Carrick.
Rush testified that he only "assumed" that Respondent
had agreed that the Carrick site was covered by the con-
235
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tract.2 During the grievance meeting, Rush asked Ruscitto
whether McGal Coal Company, the company which had
contracted with GAL to perform the work at Carrick, was
a signatory to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agree-
ment. Rush never asked whether GAL's Carrick site em-
ployees were covered by the NCMCA or any UMW con-
tract.
Ruscitto's testimony and documents produced by Re-
spondent, consisting of permits issued by the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania establishing the C('arrick operation
as a reclamation project, reveal that the Carrick site was
not a coal mine operation as described in the NCMCA.
Instead, GAL was removing coal from the site as an inci-
dent to a reclamation project seeking to prepare the land
for a housing development. In any event, in Respondent's
view, all of GAL's employees at Carrick were covered by a
contract with Local Union No. 66, International Union of
Operating Engineers. GAL did not apply the NCMCA to
its drivers when they worked at Carrick.
2. Analysis and conclusions
The General Counsel contended that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to abide by the
terms of the grievance settlement agreement regarding the
Carrick site.3 Respondent GAL contended that it had fully
lived up to the settlement agreement. I find that the evi-
dence does not sustain the General Counsel's position. As I
see it, there was no agreement reached concerning the Car-
rick site. Granted, the parties agreed that work done on
sites covered by the NCMCA would be paid at the con-
tract wage rate. However, the record establishes that Re-
spondent reasonably believed that its employees at the
Carrick site were not covered by the NCMCA and did not
say otherwise to the Union. The Union was misled only by
its mistaken assumption that Respondent was agreeing to
pay the NCMCA rate to Barry Kapusta for his work at
Carrick. This error did not bind Respondent. There is no
evidence showing that Respondent specifically agreed to
pay Kapusta the contract rate for his work at Carrick, as
General Counsel insists. In sum, there was no meeting of
the minds as to Carrick.
I find no ground for finding a violation of Respondent's
bargaining obligation under the Act. The Company com-
plied fully with its grievance settlement agreement. Ac-
cordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the allegation
that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by refusing to comply with the terms of the grievance
settlement.
C. Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
I. The facts
On May 2, before the grievance meeting, Kapusta re-
! I have credited Rush's version of the conversation on cross and recross
examination which in considerable part was corroborated bs Ruscitto. In
contrast to Kapusta, who gave a skimp) account. Rush seemed more con-
scientious about providing a frank and full account of the discussion. There-
fore. I have rejected Kapusta's version to the extent it conflicts with Rush's
testimony on cross-examination.
See B. N Beard CompanY. 231 NLRB 191 !977)
ceived a message to call Supervisor Andrew Witouski.
When he reached him, Witouski said sarcastically,
"Thanks a lot." Kapusta asked, "What for?" Witouski said,
"You filed a grievance against us with the Union."
On May 3, the day following the grievance meeting, Ka-
pusta had two conversations with Witouski. The first con-
versation occurred in the morning, in the presence of Re-
spondent's corporate secretary. Anthony Ruscitto. When
Kapusta entered the office, Witouski asked him why he
had filed a grievance. Kapusta explained that he had not
intended to file a formal grievance, but had wanted to re-
solve the problem of his medical benefits. Later in the con-
versation, Witouski said, "For a measly couple hundred
bucks you almost lost your job."
Later that day Witouski and Kapusta had another ex-
change in the company driveway. Witouski was carrying a
ball bat with which he had been hitting rocks. He ap-
proached Kapusta and told him that he had made a lot of
trouble for the Company by filing the grievance and said,
"The next time you cause me any union problems, I am
going to personally bust your nose." 4
I find from Kapusta's uncontradicted testimony that to-
ward the beginning of June, Supervisor Ray Burow in-
structed Kapusta to sign a form declaring his resignation
from the Union. When Witouski joined the discussion Ka-
pusta asked whether this action was being taken because of
the grievance. Witouski replied that it was not, adding that
the Company had decided to "lay some guys off from the
UMW." Kapusta asked if the "layoff" involved everyone,
including those employees working at the Carrick site. Wi-
touski replied that it did. Kapusta hesitated about signing
the form, after voicing fear of loss of his union medical
benefits. Witouski telephoned Union President Rush, who
assured him that the benefits would continue to apply to
Kapusta and his family. Witouski passed this assurance on
to Kapusta. Two days later, Kapusta signed the form and
sent it to the Union.
2. Analysis and conclusions
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act on May 3, when Supervisor Witouski coercively inter-
rogated and repeatedly threatened employee Kapusta re-
garding his filing of a grievance. By asking Kapusta why he
filed his grievance and then implying in the following re-
mark that he had endangered his job, Witouski violated
Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. By this conduct Witouski
coerced, restrained, and interfered with employee rights
under Section 7 of the Act.5 Similarly violative of Section
4Witouski testified first that he did not recall threatening Kapusta for
filing a grievance. When asked to explain what he meant by this answer,
Wtouski became evasive and then denied ever threatening Kapusta. In
contrast. Kapusta testified about these incidents in a full and forthright
manner. Accordingly. I have credited Kapusta's account of this conversa-
tion.
Sec. 7 of the Act states:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form. join. or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or othcr mutual aid or protec-
tion. and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such
activities.
236
GAL CONSTRUCTION. INC.
8(a)(1) of the Act was Witouski's warning that Kapusta
would suffer physical injury if he again filed a grievance
against GAL.
I also find that Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced Kapusta in the exercise of his rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 to belong to a union when Supervisors
Burow and Witouski ordered Kapusta to resign from the
Union. Such conduct violated Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
D. The Alleged Discrimination
1. The facts
On May 2, the date of the grievance meeting, GAL
granted William Barr, GAL's other union driver, a wage
increase of $1.43 an hour, raising his hourly pay from $6.50
to $7.93. This $7.93 hourly rate was the NCMCA rate for
his class B driver classification prior to the most recent
14-cent cost-of-living increase. Barr received the wage in-
crease in his next paycheck, on May 4, for the period from
April 26 to and including May 2. Respondent's payroll
computations for that payroll were completed and sent out
of its office by noon on May 2.
Kapusta, a class C driver, received no wage increase and
continued at the $5.07 hourly rate he had received before
the grievance meeting. Although the payroll department
was authorized to pay Kapusta the $7.58 NCMCA hourly
rate for class C drivers when he worked at sites covered by
the contract, the payroll records indicate that he was not
paid at this rate, except for the backpay from the grievance
settlement regarding his work at the Emerald Mine. Thus, I
find from the records that after May 2 Kapusta did not
perform at any sites covered by the contract.
2. Analysis and conclusions
The complaint alleges that from May 2, the date of the
grievance meeting, to the date of Kapusta's last employ-
ment with Respondent, Respondent refused to assign Ka-
pusta to work covered by the Union and refused to pay
him the contract wage rate. At the same time, according to
the complaint, Respondent assigned such work and paid
the contract rate to employee Bill Barr, whose work was
similar to Kapusta's.
The General Counsel has not substantiated the allega-
tion of disparate assignment of work. On the contrary, Ka-
pusta testified that following the grievance meeting Barr
worked I day at the Emerald Mine while Kapusta worked
2 days at the same site.
Turning to the remaining alleged discrimination, the rec-
ord established that on May 2. the date of the grievance
meeting, Respondent granted Barr a wage increase of $1.43
per hour. while Kapusta continued at his previous wvage
rate. The General Counsel contended that by paying Barr
at the contract rate, while continuing to pay Kapusta at his
" The record is not clear on thl mlltier. Although Kaiputa testIlcd thai
he worked 2 davs at the f merald Mine, it is unclear hether he a., mnercl\
delivering to the site (in which case his normal wage rate vsould he p lid or
whether he was making several stops in the site iin ihich case ithe (( MCA
rate would apply).
much lower rate, the Company discriminated against Ka-
pusta in violation of Section 8(a)( 3 ) and (I) of the Act.
GAL argued that it awarded the wage increase to Barr and
withheld a wage increase from Kapusta after assessing the
relative merit of each employee's job performance. I find
merit in the General Counsel's contention.
Contrary to GAL, I find that the Respondent denied
Kapusta a wage increase in retaliation for his gnevance.
Kapusta filed his grievance and pressed it to resolution.
Respondent knew of this activity and expressed hostility
toward such activity on the morning of the grievance meet-
ing and later, on May 3. No such hostitlity was directed at
Barr., who did not file a grievance, and who received a
$1.43 hourly wage increase, in hand, 2 days after the grievs-
ance meeting. The record shows that as late as noon on
May 2, Respondent could have made and implemented its
decision to give Barr that increase. Kapusta, who filed the
grievance, received no increase and was the target of
Witouski's hostile remarks early that same day. Thus. I
find ample evidence to support the General Counsel's posi-
tion.
The Company attempts tojustify its disparate treatment
of Kapusta by arguing that Barr's raise was a ment in-
crease, granted because Barr had a better driving record
and could handle more kinds of equipment than Kapusta.
I find this argument unconvincing. Ruscitto testified that
Barr first asked for a wage increase some time in April and
that he decided to grant the request based on Respondent's
need of Barr's services and the possibility that Barr would
go elsewhere if he did not receive a raise. However, Re-
spondent leaves unexplained the timing of the implementa-
tion of the request and the concomitant neglect to accord
Kapusta a comparable wage increase as a class C driver.
This element, together with Respondent's expressions of
hostility toward Kapusta's grievance, persuade me that Re-
spondent rewarded Barr for withdrawing from the griev-
ance proceeding and punished Kapusta because he pressed
his grievance. Thus, I find that by discriminating against
Kapusta by not granting him the contractual pay rate due
his classification because he filed the grievance under a
collective-bargaining agreement. the Company violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (I ) of the Act.
CON(I. USiONS OF I.AW
I. Respondent GAL Construction, Inc., is, and at all
times material herein has been, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. United Mine Workers of America. l.ocal 1846, is
now, and at all times material herein has been. a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 5) of the Act.
3. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) 5) and (I ) of
the Act by refusing to abide by the terms of a grievance
settlement agreement.
4. By interrogating Barry Kapusta regarding his filing of
a grievance. by threatening him with discharge and physi-
cal harm if he continued to file grievances. and by ordering
him to resign from the Union. Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engag-
237
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. By discriminating against Barry Kapusta regarding
his rate of pay because of his filing a grievance, Respon-
dent has committed an unfair labor practice violative of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to assign work covered by a collective-
bargaining agreement to Barry Kapusta.
7. Respondent did not otherwise violate the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having further found that Respondent denied a wage
increase to Barry Kapusta because he engaged in protected
union activity, I will also recommend that Respondent be
ordered to make him whole for his loss of earnings suffered
as a result of that discrimination from the date of such
denial until the date on which the appropriate wage in-
crease becomes effective, together with interest thereon to
be computed in accordance with the policy set forth in
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby make the following recommended:
ORDER7
The Respondent, GAL Construction, Inc., Charleroi,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their filing of
grievances.
(b) Threatening its employees with physical violence,
loss of employment, or other reprisals because they en-
gaged in union activity or because they filed grievances
pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement.
(c) Ordering employees to resign from United Mine
Workers of America, Local 1846, or any other labor orga-
nization.
(d) Discriminating against employees with regard to
rates of pay or other conditions of employment because
they have filed grievances pursuant to a collective-bargain-
ing agreement.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining. or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Barry Kapusta whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him, in the manner set forth in The Remedy of this Deci-
sion.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back-
pay due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Charleroi, Pennsylvania, plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
7In 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.
s In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and
ordered us to post this notice. We intend to abide by the
following:
The National Labor Relations Act give all employees
the following rights:
To organize themselves.
To form, join, or help unions.
To choose a union to represent you in bargaining
with us.
To act together for your common interest or pro-
tection.
To refuse to participate in any or all of these ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with your rights.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you concerning your activi-
ties in support of the United Mine Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 1846, or any other union, including the fil-
ing of grievances under a collective-bargaining
agreement.
WE WILL NOI threaten you with loss of job, physical
238
GAL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
violence, or other punishment for engaging in union
activities, including the filing of grievances.
WE WILL NOT order you to resign from the United
Mine Workers of America, Local 1846, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against you in your wage
rate, or in any other manner, because you engaged in
union activity, including the filing of grievances.
WE WILL pay Barry Kapusta the wages he lost be-
cause of our discrimination against him for filing a
grievance with United Mine Workers of America, Lo-
cal 1846.
GAL CONSTRUCTION, IN(
239