George W. Kennedy Construction Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1775 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

GEORGE W. KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1775
George W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc.
and International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 150. Case 13-CA-8225
and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
August 28, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On June 19, 1968, Trial Examiner William Sea-
gle issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief, Charging Party filed a brief in sup-
port of the Trial Examiner's Decision, 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no_
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner as modified below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, George
W. Kennedy Construction Company, Inc., Antioch,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified.
Add the following as paragraph 2(c) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order and reletter the
subsequent paragraphs as 2(d) and (e):
"Notify the above-named employees, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of their right to full reinstatement, upon applica-
tion, in accordance with the Selective Service Act
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM SEAGLE, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on January 22, 1968, a complaint issued by
the Regional Director of Region 13 on March 29,
1968, in which it was alleged that the Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging Gary W. Butz one of its employees; and
the answer of the Respondent denying commission
of any unfair labor practice, I, William Seagle, the
duly designated Trial Examiner, heard this case at
Chicago , Illinois , on May 22 and 23,1968.
Subsequent to the hearing counsel for all parties
filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the record so made, and in view of my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I
hereby make the following findings of fact.
1. THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, George W. Kennedy Construc-
tion Company, Inc., of which George W. Kennedy
is the president and Harold Achim is the vice pre-
sident, is an Illinois corporation which, at all
material times, has maintained its principal office
and place of business at 1020 Anita Street, An-
tioch, Illinois, ' and which has been engaged in the
installation of sewer and pipe improvements and in
the performance of related services for cities,
towns, and villages in the State of Illinois and else-
where in other States.2
During the period from May 1, 1967, to May 1,
1968, which is a representative period, the Respon-
dent had gross annual earnings in the amount of
$1,350,000, derived from work performed for the
towns of Elmhurst, Franklin, and Lombard, Illinois.
During the winter of 1967, the Respondent also did
snow removal work for the city of Chicago for
which it received approximately $22,000. It also
plowed snow for Elmhurst and Phoenix, Illinois,
receiving $12,000 from the former and $2,500
from the latter for these services.
On occasion, the work performed by the Respon-
dent involves sewer and water main installations
along county and state roads, and in connection
with the performance of this work, the Respondent
has to obtain permits from the Illinois State
Highway Department. During the representative
period, the Respondent installed about 7,000 feet
of pipe along state roads, and about 3,000 feet of
I At the time of the hearing, the Respondent was working in Elmhurst, II-
l,nois, and maintained a field office there at Second and West Streets
2 Thus, in 1964 or 1965, the Respondent performed work in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, on a job involving approximately $143,000, and in 1965 or
1966 it performed work in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, on a lob involving ap-
proximately $165,000
172 NLRB No. 196
1776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pipe along county roads. Of approximately
$712,000 involved in the Respondent 's work for
Elmhurst, Illinois, work along the state hi hway in-
volved approximately $250,000; and ofgapproxi-
mately $251,000 involved in the Respondent's work
for Lombard, Illinois, work along the state highway
involved approximately $14,000.
During the representative period, the Respondent
purchased three six-wheel dumptrucks for which it
paid approximately $36,500. These trucks were
manufactured by the Ford Motor Company at
Detroit, Michigan. During the same period the
Respondent also purchased at a cost of approxi-
mately $18,000 a hydraulic bantam back hoe that
was manufactured in Iowa. During the same period,
the Respondent also purchased at a cost of approxi-
mately $12,000 manhole frames and sewer covers
that were manufactured by the Neenah Foundry in
Wisconsin. The Respondent also spends approxi-
mately $12,000 a year on fuel and the same amount
on grease products. Although these pieces of equip-
ment and supplies , which in the aggregate cost over
$50,000, were purchased locally, it is evident that
they originated outside the State of Illinois , and that
they thus constituted an indirect inflow of goods
sufficient to satisfy the Board 's jurisdictional stan-
dard .3 In addition , it is evident that the Respondent
constituted a link in commerce, since it performed
work in the maintenance of instrumentalities of
commerce in an amount far exceeding $50,000.4
I find, therefore, that the operations of the
Respondent meet the Board 's jurisdictional stan-
dards and that the Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 150, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. There is in effect
between Local 150 and the Illinois Road Builders
Association, Excavators, Inc., Underground Con-
tractors Association, Chicago Outer Belt Contrac-
tors Association, Illinois Truck and Equipment
Contractors Association, and Wreckers Associa-
tion, Inc ., a collective-bargaining agreement known
as the "Heavy and Highway Agreement," which is
contained in a printed green-cover booklet. The
Respondent has adhered to this agreement and
made payments thereunder to the health and wel-
fare fund of Local 150.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Gary W. Butz, whose unlawful discharge is al-
leged in the complaint, has been a menber of Local
150 for 6 years. Within this period, he had worked
at three different times for Kennedy. In 1961, ap-
parently, he worked for Kennedy for only about 2
or 3 months as an oiler, and he was laid off when
the specific job for which he was employed had
been completed. The second period of his employ-
ment, which was from April 1966 to February
1967, commenced when he was sent out to the job
by the local union, and he was on a snow removal
job when he was laid off. He was employed by Ken-
nedy for the third time in August 1967, but this
time it was he who sought employment with Ken-
nedy because he was not getting very many hours
on the job on which he was then working. During
this third period of employment, Butz operated
mainly a front-end loader and Kennedy regarded
him as an exceptionally good operator, and called
him by his nickname , which was "Jerry." Neverthe-
less, Butz was discharged by Kennedy on December
11, 1967. The discharge climaxed a series of in-
cidents involving the violation of union work rules
by Kennedy.
The first of these incidents occurred at Carol
Stream, Illinois, in October 1967. Butz then ob-
served the operator of a back hoe, whose name was
Harry Linden, move his machine without his oiler
being present. The back hoe was an LS-98, and was
being moved about 2 miles to another jobsite. The
next day Butz talked to the oiler whose name was
George Kline, and told the latter that he was enti-
tled to a day's pay because his machine had been
operated the previous day although he had not
been present. Kline reported the violation to Wil-
liam N. Anderson, the business agent of Local 150,
who took it up with Kennedy the same day. In the
conversation between Anderson and Kennedy, the
union business agent would not reveal that Butz
was the source of his information but Kennedy re-
marked: "I suppose it's that god-dammed Butz hol-
lering again " Nevertheless, Kennedy paid a day's
wages to the oiler, although he attempted to justify
himself by arguing that the machine was undergo-
ing repair and did not dig "one pound of dirt that
day. "
A second incident occurred in November 1967.
While he was operating his front-end loader, Butz
observed Harry Linden, the operator of the back
hoe, get down into a sewer excavation and perform
laborer's work by attempting to fix a water service.
Later that day Butz spoke to Linden and asked him
whether he was aware that he had broken the union
agreement by "going out of his line of work." Lin-
den explained to Butz that he had gone down into
the ditch to help his brother, and he could not see
"why he couldn't do it." So 2 days later Butz also
reported this incident to Anderson, the union busi-
ness agent, and the latter said he would come down
to the job and check on it. The next day Anderson
' See Siemons Mailing Service , 122 NLRB 81, 85
Sec H P 0 Service, Inc , 122 N LRB 394, Muc hell Concrete Products,
137 NLRB 504 , 511, and cases there cited
GEORGE W. KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1777
visited the jobsite and reproved Linden for doing
laborer 's work. He then spoke either to Kennedy
himself or to Dominic , one of his foremen , and told
either one or the other that it was improper for
operating engineers to perform work that was nor-
mally assigned to another craft 5
A third incident in which Butz himself was
directly involved occurred on December 7, 1967,
which was a Thursday. At or about 6 a.m. Butz
received a telephone call from Tullio Ciotti, Ken-
nedy's timekeeper and labor foreman, who told the
former that since it was raining in Elmhurst, he did
not think that they would be working that day, and
that Butz would not be paid for showup time if he ap-
peared . Although, according to Ciotti , he thus left
it up to Butz to decide whether to come to work, he
called the other employees and told them definitely
not to report to work. Ciotti testified that he issued
these different instructions pursuant to explicit or-
ders which he had received from Kennedy. After
receiving Ciotti 's telephone call, Butz left his home
at or about 7:30 a. m. and did not return home until
about 4 p.m. When he returned , he was informed
by his wife that Kennedy had telephoned him and
left a message that he would like Butz to come to
work. According to Kennedy , what had happened
was that it had stopped raining in Elmhurst , and the
sun was shining brightly; a number of the em-
ployees who were sufficient to form a crew had as-
sembled at a nearby cafe, where they were ac-
customed to go for coffee or meals; and they had
decided that they might as well work . In any event,
they did work, and Butz ' machine was operated in
the course of the day by one of the laborers, whose
name was John Thompson. This was reported to
Butz by John Olsen , a hoe operator , the morning of
December 8, after Butz had come to work that day.
Olsen not only told the latter that his machine had
been operated but that Kennedy had come out to
the job and told him ( Olsen ) that it would be all
right for a laborer to operate Butz ' machine until
Butz himself was able to get there . This conversa-
tion between Butz and Olsen occurred after Butz
had encountered Kennedy who had asked him
where he had been the previous day and why he
had not remained at home for a while , so that,
presumably, he could have been reached. That
same day Butz saw Anderson on the Elmhurst
jobsite and reported to the latter that although he
had been instructed to stay home the previous day,
a laborer had run his machine . Anderson undertook
to look into the matter , after he had spoken to Ol-
sen, who had verified Butz' complaint.
On Monday , December 11, during the morning,
Anderson paid a visit to the jobsite trailer office,
where he found Kennedy , and Achim , the vice pre-
sident of the Kennedy corporation . Anderson ac-
cused Kennedy of having a laborer on Butz'
machine on a day that Butz had been told to stay
home , and demanded a day 's pay for Butz. Ken-
nedy's reply was. "All right If that's the way you
want it I'll give him that eight hours but that'll be
the last dime you ever get out of this outfit. He's fired
as of right now. I'm sick and tired of him quoting
that book to the men all the time and calling youall
the time . He just gives me too many problems with
this union business. He's fired as of right now." An-
derson reminded Kennedy that under articles X and
XI of the union agreement an employee could
be discharged only for just cause , and that another
employee could not be permitted to operate his
machine unless he had been discharged for just
cause , and that under the dispatch system used by
the union local he would get Butz back. Kennedy
declared that nothing Anderson could do would
change his mind , and that he intended to meet Butz
at the gate the following morning with his check.
Achim added that the Union could send Butz back
every day if they wanted to but that they would fire
him every day, and that he would not be permitted
to work for them under any circumstances
Kennedy and Achim were spared the trouble of
meeting Butz at the gate the following morning, for
at or about noon on December 11, Butz came to
the trailer office to ask Kennedy whether in view of
the rain that was falling , they would be working the
next day. Kennedy replied that they would be work-
ing, weather permitting, but that he felt that "it
would be best for all concerned " that "he got his
last check ." Kennedy added that he was sick and
tired of Butz quoting the union contract to his
operators and reporting to Anderson every infrac-
tion of the rules witnessed by him . Butz inquired
from Kennedy whether he " required any more than
what was in the written agreement that the Opera-
tors had with him ," and Kennedy replied that he
didn 't. Butz then remarked that he was sorry that
they could not get along but that Kennedy would
have more trouble than if he kept him on Kennedy
then wrote out Butz' last check , and Butz left the
trailer office . During this interview , Ciotti, Ken-
nedy's timekeeper and labor foreman , was present.
It seems obvious that Butz was discharged by
Kennedy because of his persistence in seeking
enforcement of the union work rules, and that by
discharging him the Respondent violated both
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.';
It is significant that although Ciotti was present
during Butz' discharge interview , and he was called
as a witness , he was not invited by counsel for the
Respondent to challenge the accuracy of Butz'
testimony concerning the discharge interview. The
sole purpose of the Respondent in calling Ciotti as
a witness was to relate the story of a fracas in which
5 The testimony of Anderson and Kennedy is not in agreement on this
point, and it may be that Anderson spoke to Dominic rather than Kennedy
6 See Bowman Transportation , Incorporated, 134 NLRB 1419 , enfd 314
F 2d 497 ( C A 5), Fast Texas Pulp and Paper Company , 143 NLRB 427,
enfd 346 F 2d 686 (C A 5)
1778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Butz and Kennedy had been involved prior to his
discharge. It seems that Kennedy accused Butz in
the trailer office of falsifying his time so that he
could get paid for an extra half hour. The argument
over this became heated and a scuffle ensued in
which Butz pushed Kennedy with the result that
the tatter's elbow went through one of the office
trailer's windows. The contestants were then
separated by one of the employees who had hap-
pened to come into the trailer office, and whose
name was Norris. Ciotti testified that Kennedy
levelled his accusation against Butz after he had
complained to Kennedy that Butz had incorrectly
entered his time one day. But the Kennedy workers,
who numbered about 50, did not punch timeclocks,
and there were no timecards to establish how long
any one of them had worked. Each employee mere-
ly entered the total number of hours that he had
worked on a particular day in a little book. Since an
employee did not even indicate when he had re-
ported for work and when he had quit work, there
was really no way of checking up on him, and
squabbles about the amount of time worked by a
particular employee on any given day could hardly
be definitively settled. As a matter of fact, Butz was
the only operator whose time Ciotti had ever
questioned. In any event, despite the dispute and
despite the scuffle, Kennedy did not discharge Butz
on this occasion, and the incident had in fact no
connection with Butz' ultimate discharge, which oc-
curred several weeks later 7 Kennedy attempted to
explain his failure to discharge Butz after the scuf-
fle by paying him the compliment that he was ex-
ceptional as an operator, "better than most of them
in the union," and by declaring that he could not
have obtained anyone as good. 8 But this was, of
course, just as true several weeks later when he
finally discharged Butz It is evident that by then his
patience had simply run out.
Kennedy made indeed a sorry spectacle of him-
self at the hearing. During the first day of the hear-
ing, he attempted to sham illness in an effort to get
the hearing postponed and when finally took the
stand on the second day of the hearing, he engaged
in the presentation of a farrago of nonsense, con-
tradictions, and plain falsities. He actually denied
that he had ever fired Butz. Yet in almost the same
breath he testified that he told "Jerry," "You've
worked for me for three different times and we just
couldn't get along . I think it would be best for both
sides that we part ways. You can't see eye to eye
with me and I can't see eye to eye with you. So I
think this is the nicest way of doing it. And I will
park your rig." This came also only moments after
Kennedy had admitted that Achim had declared
that they would keep sending Butz back to the'
Union if he was sent out to them, although Ken-
nedy sought to soften the admission by pretending
that he told Anderson that Butz would be laid off!
At one point in his testimony Kennedy exclaimed
that "Jerry" had "just walked out," in other words
that he had quit voluntarily. Kennedy also achieved
the feat during his direct examination of both ad-
mitting and denying that he had ever complained to
Anderson about Butz ' union activities. Incredibly,
he testified:
0. Mr. Kennedy, have you at anytime com-
plained to Mr. Anderson about Mr. Butz' al-
leged union activities')
A. No.
I did, yes, when he came in on the 11th. I
had maybe mentioned-
No, I didn't. That 's wrong.
Yes, I did, I think. I think maybe one day he
came around and I said, " Jesus , this guy has
caused me trouble." I think.
Then on the 1 1 th I told him the whole story
on the matter I said : "This guy is impossible."
And then Mr. Achim spoke up.
During his cross-examination , Kennedy admitted,
moreover, that it was "true absolutely" that he had
had a lot of trouble with Butz and the union con-
tract and that Butz talked about the union contract
to the operators in the coffeeshop who had told him
that Butz was "a watchdog or whatever it is, and
they didn't appreciate it." After this Kennedy
declared that he liked to live up to the union con-
tract, and that he respected organized labor! At this
point, counsel for the General Counsel asked Ken-
nedy whether it was not true that Butz "used to
carry around that little contract in his back
pocket"-referring to the green-cover booklet enti-
tled "Heavy and Highway Agreement"-and Ken-
nedy answered by saying: "I couldn't answer that. I
think that he had that in his truck probably. If he
carried it around he did not show it to me." Coun-
sel for the General Counsel then showed Kennedy
his prehearing affidavit in which Kennedy had
deposed: " Butz used to carry arount the union con-
tract." Indeed, in this same paragraph of his af-
fidavit, Kennedy had virtually confessed to getting
rid of Butz because of his insistence on observing
the union contract, for he had deposed as follows.
The next Monday, December 11, 1967, Ander-
son came out to the jobsite about noon. We
were not working that day because of the
' Ciotti testified on direct examination that the incident occurred during
the first workweek in December , which began on December 6, while Ken-
nedy himself testified that it occurred "the first week in December - Butz
could not recall when the particular incident occurred because, apparently,
he was involved in so many fracases with Kennedy Ciotti and Kennedy
were seeking , it is apparent , to time the incident so as to relate it more im-
mediately to Butz' discharge But it probably occurred at least several
weeks before this event On cross-examination Ciotti was forced to con-
cede that he did not really remember when the incident occured, he con-
ceded that it could have occurred during the workweek beginning
November 29, or even during the workweek before that In his preheanng
affidavit Kennedy fixed the time of the incident at "a couple of weeks be-
fore Butz was let go "
" It is not true, as counsel for the Respondent contends in his brief, that
Kennedy testified that "the reason Butz was not thereupon fired im-
mediately was because there were no other machine operators available "
GEORGE W. KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1779
weather . Anderson told me "You can't fire this
man." Mr . Achim, an estimator and vice pre-
sident of the Company, was present and said
"Then we're going to shut down the rig for 48
hours." Anderson said that he would just send
Butz back out to the job. Achim said that he
would keep the rig shut down or else get
another man from another local. Achim went
on to say that it was the Company's preroga-
tive to say who would work-"We're not going
to have this guy; we will just lay him off again."
Achim also said "We just don't like his at-
titude." Although Butz was a good operator,
he could not keep his mouth shut He was al-
ways trying to tell me how to run the opera-
tion . He was an agitator ; everything that the
Company did was wrong He was a disturbing
element. Most of the operators would look
after their own interest and the interest of the
Company but Butz was just out for Gary Butz.
I had heard from some of the other operators
that Butz had been quoting the contract to
them and generally disturbing things. It is my
position that Butz was fired for two reasons.
First , I had no work and , secondly, his attitude.
By his attitude, I am referring to his fighting
with me when I questioned his time and the
way he was attempting to interfere with the
way I was running the Company. Butz used to
carry around the union contract . I always
thought he was lying about not being home the
morning I called and tried to get him to come
in to work . Butz and his activities among the
other employees put a crimp in our style of
operation, no doubt about it. Butz, on occa-
sion , had pulled out the contract and tried to
show me where I was wrong.
IV. THE REMEDY
In view of the limited nature of the violation in-
volved in the discharge of Gary W. Butz, I shall
recommend only a form of cease -and-desist order
restraining the Respondent from discharging or
otherwise discriminating against its employees
because they may present grievances to the
Respondent.
To remedy the discharge of Gary W. Butz, I shall
also recommend, by way of affirmative relief, that
the Respondent offer to him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by him, discharging , if necessary , any new
employee hired subsequent to the date of his
discharge in order to replace him. I shall also
recommend that the Respondent make Gary W.
Butz whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount which he would
normally have earned as wages from the date of his
discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during the said
period. The amount of backpay is to be determined
in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and interest is
to be computed on the amount so determined in ac-
cordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc ,
138 NLRB 716
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, George W. Kennedy Con-
struction Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 150, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Gary W. Butz on December
11, 1967, because he persisted in attempting to en-
force union work rules, the Respondent committed
an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, I recommend that the Respon-
dent, George W. Kennedy Construction Company,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International
Union of Operating Engineers , Local 150, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging any of its employees , or in any other
manner , discriminating against them with respect to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of their employment because they may
present grievances to the Respondent.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with , restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Gary W. Butz immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniori-
ty or other rights and privileges and make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him in the
manner and to the extent set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available
to the Board, or its agents , for examination and
copying, all payroll records and other data necessa-
ry to give effect to the backpay requirement.
(c) Post at its principle office and place of busi-
ness at 1020 Anita Street , Antioch, Illinois, and
1780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
also at any field office which it may now be main-
taining copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix. "s Copies of said notice , on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director , in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10
Y In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words 'a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall he substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall he modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith -
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
Interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
to them in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act
W E WILL offer to Gary W. Butz immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of our discrimination
against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members
of any labor organization, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
GEORGE W KENNEDY
CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and In order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional l.,thor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby
notify our employees that:
WF W11.1 NOT discourage membership in In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 150, or in any other labor organization
of our employees, by discriminating with
respect to the hire or tenure of their employ-
ment, or any term or condition of their em-
ployment, because they may present
grievances to us.
Note: We will notify the above-named employee
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Ser-
vice Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 881 U.S Courthouse and Federal Office
Building , 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Il-
linois , Telephone 353-7572.