Grassetto USA Construction

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 674 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

674
313 NLRB No. 113
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 In the second and third sentences of the third paragraph of sec.
III of the judge’s decision, ‘‘Campbell’’ should read ‘‘Daniels.’’
2 See, e.g., Barnard & Burke, Inc., 238 NLRB 579 (1978); C. B.
Display Service, 260 NLRB 1102 (1982); and Claremont Hotel &
Tennis Club, 260 NLRB 1088 (1982).
3 We find the requirement that the Respondent Union provide writ-
ten notice particularly apt in this case where the Respondent Em-
ployer rejected Powell’s initial oral request that it terminate Daniels
and Campbell on the ground that the request had to be in writing.
Only after Powell provided such a written request did the Respond-
ent Employer terminate these two employees.
Grassetto USA Construction, Inc., and Incisa USA,
Inc., a Joint Venture and William F. Campbell
and Levi Daniels
Laborers International Union of North America,
Local 1450, AFL–CIO and William F. Camp-
bell and Levi Daniels. Cases 9–CA–29775, 9–
CA–29853, 9–CB–8239, and 9–CB–8267
February 18, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY
AND TRUESDALE
On June 14, 1993, Administrative Law Judge Bruce
C. Nasdor issued the attached decision. The Respond-
ent Union filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Respondent Employer filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions
and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rul-
ings, findings,1 and conclusions, and to adopt his rec-
ommended Order except that the attached notices are
substituted for those of the administrative law judge.
The judge found that the Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by requesting and causing
the Employer to layoff discriminatees Campbell and
Daniels and that the Respondent Employer violated
Section 8(a)(3) by discharging the two discriminatees.
The Respondents do not except to these findings. To
remedy their unfair labor practices, the judge ordered
the Respondents to make Campbell and Daniels whole
for any loss of earnings and benefits, with interest. The
judge also ordered the Respondent Union to notify the
Respondent Employer, in writing, that it has no objec-
tion to Campbell’s and Daniel’s reinstatement.
The Respondent Union excepts to the judge’s rec-
ommended remedy on the ground that it fails to pro-
vide that the Union’s backpay liability be tolled when
it notifies the Employer that it has no objection to the
Employer’s reinstatement of the discriminatees. The
Respondent Union also excepts to the judge’s require-
ment that it notify the Respondent Employer and the
discriminatees in writing that it withdraws its objection
to their reinstatement. In this regard, the Respondent
Union asserts that Business Agent Powell’s June 29,
1992 telephonic statement to the Respondent Employer
that it had no objection to the reinstatement of Daniels
and Campbell was sufficient to satisfy the Board’s no-
tification requirement. Accordingly, the Respondent
Union contends that its backpay liability should be
limited to 1 day because it withdrew its objection to
the reinstatement on the same day that the Respondent
Employer laid off Daniels and Campbell. We find
merit in the Respondent Union’s exceptions only to the
extent set forth below.
We agree with the Respondent Union that the judge
erred by failing to provide that its backpay obligation
terminate 5 days after it notifies the Respondent Em-
ployer and the discriminatees that it has no objection
to their reinstatement.2 We disagree, however, with its
contention that its June 29, 1992 telephonic commu-
nication is sufficient to toll its backpay liability. Con-
trary to the Respondent Union’s assertion, it is well es-
tablished that ‘‘for a union to effectively terminate its
backpay liability prior to a Board finding of an
8(b)(1)(A) or 8(b)(2) violation, the union’s written no-
tification must be sent to both the employer and the
employee.’’ Teamsters Local 610, 236 NLRB 1048,
1048 fn. 1 (1978) (emphasis in original). Because the
Respondent Union did not provide written notification
on June 29 or thereafter, its backpay liability will con-
tinue until it provides such written notification.3
Even assuming that oral notification were sufficient,
we would still find that the Respondent Union’s June
29 request did not toll its backpay liability. When, in
the circumstances present here, a union attempts to
remedy its prior unlawful action, the Board requires
that it take ‘‘clear, unequivocal action . . . so as not
to permit it to escape liability by virtue of a token act
not calculated or likely to achieve a correction of the
wrong committed.’’ Tryco Steel Corp., 192 NLRB 97
(1971). In the present case, after Daniels and Campbell
went to Powell’s office to pay the initiation fee and
seek reinstatement, Powell called the Respondent Em-
ployer’s office manager, Charles Guyn, and told him
that Daniels and Campbell were in his office and want-
ed to pay their initiation fees. According to his
uncontradicted testimony, Powell then stated: ‘‘I don’t
mind; I’ll reinstate them if you want them back.’’
When Guyn told Powell that the Respondent Employer
did not need them back and that they were laid off,
Powell said nothing further on the employees’ behalf.
Powell’s conditional remarks to the effect that ‘‘if’’ the
Respondent Employer wants to reinstate Daniels and
Campbell the Respondent Union ‘‘doesn’t mind’’ is
not the ‘‘clear, unequivocal’’ statement that the Board
requires when a union attempts to cure its unlawful ac-
tion and limit its backpay liability. In this regard, we
note that Powell’s remarks were pitched to Guyn mere-
ly as a response to Daniels’ and Campbell’s visit and
efforts to pay their initiation fees rather than as an ex-
675GRASSETTO USA CONSTRUCTION
1 All dates are in 1992 unless otherwise noted.
press attempt by the Respondent Union to cure its own
unlawful action which the Respondent Employer had
joined by laying off the two employees. For all these
reasons, we find that Powell’s request did not toll the
Respondent Union’s backpay liability as of June 29,
1992.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Orders of the administrative law judge and
orders that Respondent Grassetto USA Construction,
Inc., Harlan, Kentucky, and Incisa USA, Inc., a Joint
Venture, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
and Respondent Laborers International Union of North
America, Local 1450, AFL–CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Orders, except that the attached notices are sub-
stituted for those of the administrative law judge.
APPENDIX I
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the tenure
of employment of William F. Campbell and Levi Dan-
iels.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to William F. Campbell and Levi
Daniels immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions or, if such jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered by reason of their discharges, with in-
terest.
WE WILL remove from our files any references to
the discharges of the above-named employees, and no-
tify them in writing that this has been done and that
evidence of their unlawful discharges shall not be used
as a basis for future personnel action against them.
GRASSETTO USA CONSTRUCTION,
INC., AND INCISA USA, INC., A JOINT
VENTURE
APPENDIX II
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Grassetto
USA Construction, Inc. and Incisa USA, Inc., a Joint
Venture, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against
William F. Campbell, Levi Daniels, or any other em-
ployee for failure to timely tender initiation fees or
periodic dues without adequately advising them of
their obligations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce members in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL advise the above-named Employer and
employees, in writing, that we withdraw and rescind
our request for their discharge, and that we have no
objection to their reinstatement without any loss of se-
niority and other rights and privileges previously en-
joyed by them.
WE WILL affirmatively request the Employer, in
writing, to reinstate them.
WE WILL make the above-named employees whole,
with interest, for any loss of pay suffered because of
the discrimination against them.
LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 1450, AFL–
CIO
Patricia Rossner Fry, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Donald P. Wagner, Esq., for the Respondent Employer.
Irvin H. Cutler Jr., Esq., for the Respondent Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE NASDOR, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried at Harlan, Kentucky, on January 12, 1993. The charge
in Case 9–CA–29775 was filed by Campbell on July 20,
1992.1 The original charge in Case 9–CB–8239 was filed by
Campbell on July 20, 1992. The amended charge in Case 9–
CB–8239 was filed by Campbell on August 4. The charge
in Case 9–CA–29853 was filed by Daniels on August 14,
and the charge in Case 9–CB–8267 was filed by Daniels on
August 14. An order consolidating cases, consolidated com-
plaint and notice of hearing issued on September 2, 1992.
The allegations are that the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by requesting and causing the
discharge of Levi Daniels and William F. Campbell on June
29. It is further alleged that the Employer violated Section
676 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by terminating Campbell and Dan-
iels.
On the entire record including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material Respondent Employer, a joint ven-
ture, has been engaged as a general contractor in the con-
struction industry performing heavy and highway construc-
tion in various States of the United States, including a tunnel
project at Harlan, Kentucky.
During the 12-month period ending August 1, Respondent,
in the conduct of its operations, purchased and received at
its Harlan, Kentucky jobsite goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.
At all times material, Respondent Employer has been en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
At all times material, Respondent Union has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Grassetto USA Construction, Inc. and Incisa USA, Inc. is
a joint venture and party to a collective-bargaining agreement
and prehire agreement. The terms of these agreements pro-
vide that bargaining unit employees are required to become
members of the Union on the eighth working day. Working
dues are deducted by the Employer. The Employer does not
deduct any money for the initiation fees that must be paid
by new union members.
The Respondent Employer began work in approximately
1990 on a flood control project for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The project involved diverting a river around the
city of Harlan, Kentucky, utilizing tunnels. In the spring of
1992, the job was nearing completion, and the Respondent
Employer hired additional employees as carpenters to build
forms and lay concrete on the floors of the tunnels.
Daniels was hired as a carpenter on March 16, 1992. On
April 14, Respondent Union’s business manager, Danny
Powell, came into the tunnel where Campbell was working,
and had him sign a dues-checkoff authorization. Powell told
Campbell that he should begin to pay some of the $300 initi-
ation fee. Daniels attended a union meeting on May 10. Prior
to the meeting, he offered to Powell to pay his initiation fee,
but Powell refused to accept it, telling him to wait because
he was going out to the jobsite to talk to several people and
he would take it then. Powell testified that when he came out
of his office 45 members were lined up down the hall and
it was like running a gauntlet. According to Powell the mem-
bers were pulling at him to do things for them. Powell told
Daniels that he couldn’t accept the money out there in the
hallway and he couldn’t write him a receipt at the time.
Powell concedes that Daniels started to reach for his billfold.
Powell never spoke to Daniels on the job, though Daniels
once saw Powell outside the tunnel when Daniels was inside
working. Powell did not speak to him at that time.
Campbell commenced work for Respondent Employer on
May 6. Four to five weeks later, Respondent Union’s stew-
ard, Burton Caldwell, spoke to Campbell in the tunnel while
he was working and gave him papers to sign which Camp-
bell said he would fill out later. Caldwell told Campbell that
his dues and initiation fees were $339 and he needed to send
in $100 per week. Campbell asked for the address of where
he was to send his payments. Caldwell did not have it, but
promised to get back to Campbell. Campbell next saw
Caldwell on June 26, and gave him the signed papers while
Caldwell wrote out the Union’s address. Caldwell also told
him that he was not on a list of employees to be laid off
that day.
On Friday, June 26, Caldwell called Powell and advised
him that there was going to be a layoff of five employees
who worked as truckdrivers and miners, including the sec-
ond-shift steward, Raymond Abner. Powell went to the job-
site to see the project superintendent, Jerry Haney. He re-
quested that Haney retain the second shift steward and lay
off three employees who had not paid their initiation fees.
Haney refused, stating that he was laying off people as their
jobs were completed. Powell then told Haney to fire Daniels,
Campbell, and Conrad Marker. Haney refused to fire them
without something in writing from the Union. Powell told
Haney that if they did not get paid up he would run them
off the job on Monday. At that point Powell left the jobsite.
Nothing was said to Daniels or Campbell about their im-
minent discharge if they did not pay their dues before Mon-
day morning. Powell acknowledged that neither Daniels nor
Campbell were given any deadline within which to pay their
initiation fees and $13 monthly dues.
Daniels and Campbell were assigned to work as members
of Charlie Slaven’s crew. Powell testified he spoke to mem-
bers of Slaven’s crew but he was unsure as to whether he
had spoken to either Daniels or Campbell on any particular
day, concerning their obligation to pay their initiation fees.
He testified that he told Charlie Slaven, the foreman of the
crew, that Campbell and the other three guys he fired that
Slaven should explain to them that they had to get their initi-
ation fees paid. He was asked if he explained whether Camp-
bell, Daniels, or Turner had not paid their dues. He re-
sponded, ‘‘Yes, I did but I told them I didn’t know their
names and I couldn’t swear that I talked to this individual
or that individual but I talked to Charlie Slaven’s crew.’’
On June 29, on a Monday at approximately 7 a.m., Powell
took a letter to the jobsite requesting the discharge of em-
ployees for not following the initiation fee provisions pursu-
ant to the contract. Attached to the letter was a list naming
Conrad Marker, William Campbell, Levi Daniels, and Chris
Brown. Next to the names were dates that the individuals al-
legedly signed their authorizations, and also figures showing
the amount the individuals have paid. In every instance it re-
flected that no moneys had been paid. Powell left the jobsite
before Daniels and Campbell arrived at the tool shed where
they were advised by Haney that the Union had fired them,
and Haney showed them the letter. The group walked outside
with Haney and saw Burt Caldwell and Conrad Marker.
Campbell said that he had just gotten the address on Friday
for where he could send the initiation fee and Caldwell
agreed. Haney told the employees that the Union had gotten
677GRASSETTO USA CONSTRUCTION
mad because the Company had laid off their second shift
steward, and told Campbell that he should see a lawyer.
Campbell, Daniels, and Marker waited for an hour at the
jobsite while Haney drove to the office to obtain copies of
Respondent Union’s request for their discharge. Campbell
and Daniels went to see a lawyer and then called Powell.
Powell told them he would accept their dues and fees and
try to get them reinstated. Accordingly, they drove approxi-
mately 50 miles from the jobsite to the union hall. When
they arrived at the union hall offering to pay, Powell called
the Respondent Employer and was told that they would not
be reinstated as the Employer said their discharge was
changed to a layoff status.
Haney testified that he no longer needed Daniels and
Campbell because he moved his people around and switched
people from one crew to another and ‘‘filled everything up.’’
He testified further that the Employer did not hire any men
to replace them.
Conclusion and Analysis
In Coopers NIU (Blue Grass), 299 NLRB 720, 723
(1990), the Board educates us, inter alia:
[W]hen a union seeks to enforce the union-security pro-
vision of a contract against unit employees, it has a fi-
duciary duty to fully inform the employee of his dues
obligation before taking any action to effect his dis-
charge. Specifically, the Union has to give the em-
ployee, at minimum, reasonable notice of the delin-
quency, including a statement of the precise amount
and months for which dues are owed and of the method
used to compute this amount, tell the employee when
to make the required payment, and explain to the em-
ployee that failure to pay will result in discharge.
In another case, Carpenters Local 296 (Acron Construc-
tion Service Co.), 305 NLRB 822 (1991), the Board affirmed
the administrative law judge’s decision finding that a union
fiduciary duty requires it to inform the employee of his obli-
gations in order that the employee may take whatever action
is necessary to protect his job tenure. The Board concluded
that giving 1 or 2 days’ notice to the employee of his obliga-
tion and the deadline for meeting same was not adequate op-
portunity for the employee to make the payments. Although
the employee was on notice generally of his dues obligation,
he was not given a precise deadline for payment until 2 days
prior to that deadline which the Board found inadequate.
Neither Daniels nor Campbell was given the necessary no-
tice of his obligation, which the Union had a fiduciary duty
to provide. Moreover, the union representative admitted that
the Union never gave Daniels or Campbell a deadline by
which to make his payments to stave off discharge. The
union never gave these employees an explicit explanation of
the amounts owed or the method of computation. Campbell
and Daniels were merely told they had to start paying their
initiation fees. This fell very short of meeting its fiduciary
obligation to inform the employees of their obligation.
The Board has held that negligence or inattention on the
part of employees will not relieve the union of its fiduciary
obligation. The union must show that an employee willfully
and deliberately attempted to avoid union-security obligation,
before the Board will excuse the union’s failure to fully com-
ply with the notice requirements.
Daniels drove 50 miles in order to pay his initiation fee,
which Powell was too busy to accept.
Daniels testified that Powell never subsequently spoke to
him at the jobsite. While in the tunnel, Daniels saw Powell
who was outside of the tunnel, at a distance. Powell didn’t
really know who he spoke to other than ‘‘Slaven’s crew.’’
Daniels and Campbell were credible witnesses who im-
pressed me with their efforts to be exacting in their testi-
mony. They testified in a clear-cut, exacting manner.
While, way of contrast, Powell demonstrated a poor mem-
ory and was not explicit. I therefore credit Daniels and
Campbell over Powell.
Campbell responsibly signed a checkoff when it was pre-
sented to him on June 12, over a month after he commenced
to work. The steward, Caldwell, wasn’t even able to give
him an address where he could send his initiation fee.
Caldwell gave him the address on Friday, June 26, but didn’t
inform him that he would be discharged on Monday at 7
a.m.
Campbell had arranged for his wife to mail a partial pay-
ment to the Union, prior to being informed of his termi-
nation.
The Respondent Employer, on the morning of June 26, an-
nounced a layoff of certain truckdrivers and miners whose
work was completed. Among them was the second shift
steward. After learning this, Powell came to the jobsite to de-
mand that the steward be retained. The General Superintend-
ent Haney would not keep the steward, and Powell, in re-
sponse, suggested that the three employees who had not yet
paid their initiation fees be laid off and that those employees
who were slated for layoff be retained. Haney refused to do
this. As a result, Powell demanded that the three individuals,
including Campbell and Daniels, be fired for nonpayment of
initiation fees.
Even a cursory investigation by Haney would have dis-
closed that Daniels had once proffered his entire initiation
fee and had been refused, and then subsequently not given
any deadline for payment.
Haney even advised Campbell to see a lawyer. I am con-
vinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge
of Campbell by the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
According to the credited testimony of Campbell, Haney
stated and repeated that all that it boiled down to was that
the Union got mad because the Employer had to lay off a
second shift union steward.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by requesting and causing
the discharge of Daniels and Campbell. Furthermore, I find
that the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act when it discharged Daniels and Campbell on June 29,
even though Respondent was on notice that the discharge re-
quest had been made in retaliation for the layoff of a union
steward.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Grassetto USA Construction, Inc. and Incisa
USA, Inc., a Joint Venture, is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
678 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
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.’’
2. Laborers International Union of North America, Local
1450, AFL–CIO is now and has been at all times material
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By discriminating with regard to the tenure of employ-
ment of William F. Campbell and Levi Daniels, Respondent
Employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The Respondent Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act by causing the discharge of employees
William F. Campbell and Levi Daniels for nonpayment of
dues and initiation fees in a manner which did not satisfy its
fiduciary obligation to the employees.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Employer has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent Employer be
ordered to offer Campbell and Daniels immediate and full re-
instatement to their former or, substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges. Respondent shall expunge from its files and
records any references to the discharges of these individuals,
and notify them in writing, that this has been done, and that
evidence of their unlawful discharges shall not be used as a
basis for future personnel actions against them.
I am cognizant of the fact that the Employer is in the
building and construction industry which could possibly give
rise to questions of job longevity or availability, but any such
problems which might arise can properly be addressed at the
compliance stage of these proceedings.
In addition, Respondent Employer shall make whole these
employees for any losses they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them, by payment to them, a
sum of money equal to that to which they would have nor-
mally earned from the date of their discharges, less net earn-
ings during the period.
Loss of earnings shall be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). Inter-
est shall be computed in the manner prescribed in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
Both Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union
shall cease and desist from engaging in any like or related
conduct.
The Respondent Union shall also post an appropriate no-
tice and shall be ordered to advise the Employer in writing
and Daniels and Campbell in writing that it withdraws and
rescinds its request for their discharge and that it has no ob-
jection to their reinstatement without loss of seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by them.
Respondent Union shall further be ordered to request, in
writing, that the the Employer reinstate Campbell and Dan-
iels.
In addition, the Respondent Union shall be ordered to
make Campbell and Daniels whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced
against them, and all backpay provided shall be with interest
and computed in the manner described in New Horizons for
the Retarded, and F. W. Woolworth Co., supra.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
A. The Respondent Employer, Grassetto USA Construc-
tion, Inc. and Incisa USA, Inc., a Joint Venture, Harlan, Ken-
tucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment
of William F. Campbell and Levi Daniels.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Campbell and Daniels immediate and full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of the decision.
(b) Remove from its files any references to the discharges
of the employees named above and notify them in writing
that this has been done, and that evidence of their unlawful
discharges shall not be used as a basis for future personnel
against them.
(c) Post at its facilities copies of the notice marked ‘‘Ap-
pendix I.’’3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately on receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Respondent shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma-
terial.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
679GRASSETTO USA CONSTRUCTION
4 See fn. 2, supra. 5 See fn. 3, supra.
B. The Respondent Union, Laborers International Union of
North America, Local 1450, AFL–CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall4
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Causing or tempting to cause the Employer to dis-
charge or otherwise discriminate against William F. Camp-
bell, Levi Daniels, or any other employee for failure to ten-
der to the Respondent Union dues or initiation fees, without
giving them an adequate or reasonable period of time to pay
such dues.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify the Employer that it has no objection to the re-
employment of William F. Campbell and Levi Daniels and
seek their reinstatement with the Employer.
(b) Make Daniels and Campbell whole with interest, for
any loss of earnings and other benefits they may have in-
curred as a result of the discrimination against them. Back-
pay shall be computed in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(c) Post at its facility copies of the attached notice marked
‘‘Appendix II.’’5 Copies of the notice on forms provided by
the Regional Director of Region 9, shall be signed by the
Union’s authorized representative and posted by the Union
immediately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Union to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Forward a sufficient number of signed copies of the
notice to the Regional Director for Region 9 for posting by
the Employer at its place of business in places where notices
to employees are customarily posted, if the Employer is will-
ing to do so.
(e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.