Gulf Coast Steel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 831 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

GULF COAST STEEL, INC.
Gulf Coast Steel, Inc. and Llewellyn Evans. Case 10-
CA-12919
June 12, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On March 1, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Marvin Roth issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting 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 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge 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, Gulf Coast Steel, Inc.,
Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, except that the attached notice is
substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibilit) findings made bh the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to i'.er-
rule the Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that
the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Productrs Inc., 91 NL RB
544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefullk examined
the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR REL.AIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had an opportu-
nity to present their evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post this notice and to carry out its provisions.
WE WILL NOI discharge employees or in any
other manner discriminate against them with re-
gard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment, because
they claim rights under a collective-bargaining
contract, or because they engage in any other
union or concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection.
WE WIL. NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge or other reprisal because they engage in
such activities.
WE wll L Nor interrogate employees about
their union or concerted activities or attitudes.
WE wIl. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL offer Llewellyn Evans immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if
such job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his se-
niority or other rights, and make him whole for
losses he suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him, plus interest.
GU:iE COAST STEEL, IN(C
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAR'IN ROTH. Administrative Law Judge: This case was
heard before me in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 24, 1978.
The charge and amended charge were filed respectively, on
July 8 and August 17, 1977, by Llewellyn Evans, an indi-
vidual. The complaint, which issued on August 17, 1977,
and was amended at the hearing by direction of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge, alleges that Gulf Coast Steel. Inc.
(herein called the Company or Respondent), violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. The gravamen of the complaint is that the Com-
pany interrogated and threatened employee Evans, and
discharged him on July 1, 1977, because of his union and
concerted activities. The Company's answer denies the
commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. All par-
ties were afforded full opportunity to participate. to pre-
sent relevant evidence, and to argue orally. Briefs were
waived.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having con-
sidered the arguments of counsel, I make the following:
FlNDING;S OF FA( r
The Company, a Georgia corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Atlanta. Georgia. is a con-
tractor in the building and construction industry. The
236 NLRB No. 98
831
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company annually performs services valued in excess of
$50,000 directly for customers located outside of Georgia.
It is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act. International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union No. 387,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act. The Company is a
member of Association of Steel Erectors & Heavy Equip-
ment Operators, Inc., a multiemployer bargaining associa-
tion, and through such membership has a collective-bar-
gaining relationship with the Union. The 1975 77 contract,
which was effective through June 30. 1977, and which is
relevant to the present case, contained the following provi-
sion:
ARTICLE 9
REPORTING TIME
A. When an Ironworker is ordered by his Employer
or his Representative to report for work and, through
no fault of such Ironworker, is not put to work, the
Employer shall pay him for two (2) hours time, weath-
er permitting; if any' work is performed, the Employer
shall pay him four (4) hours, weather permitting; if
any work is performed in the afternoon, the Employer
shall pay him eight (8) hours, weather permitting.
Llewellyn Evans, a rodman. i.e.,journeyman ironworker,
was hired by the Company in May 19 77.' Company Vice
President Michael T ucker personally asked Evans to come
to work for the Company, because Evans had been recom-
mended to him. Evans, a union member, was cleared
through the union hall and was covered by the union con-
tract. He went to work on the Hartsfield Airport project.
which was the Company's biggest job. Evans performed
well, and was soon promoted to foreman. However, he ap-
parently, had difficulty in directing other employees, and
about 2 weeks before his discharge he was returned to his
job as rodman.
Evan testified that on Friday, June 24, when he received
his paycheck for the week ending June 17, he saw that he
had been paid only for 30 hours; i.e., time actually worked
instead of the 38 hours to which Evans felt he was entitled
by virtue of the reporting time provision of the union con-
tract, quoted above. Evans testified that he complained to
the Union's job steward, who checked with the Union. The
steward then told Evans and the other ironworkers on the
job that Evans was right, and that the ironworkers were
entitled to 2, 4, or 8 hours reporting time pay as provided
in the contract. Later that day, Company General Fore-
man Felix Odom told the employees that, beginning the
next day, they would so receive 2, 4, or 8 hours reporting
pay. However, Evans testified that on Thursday, June 30,
Odom's subordinate, Foreman Joe Sanders, told Evans
that Odom said to ask Evans whether "you are going to
stay with the Company or the Union." Evans answered
that he was "one hundred per cent union." Evans testified
that, at this point, Sanders said that he did not want any-
thing to do with firing Evans because Evans was a good
worker. Evans reported the conversation to the Union's
All dates herein are in 1977 unless otherwise indicated.
business agents, who told him that the Company had no
right to fire him, and that he should go back to work. How-
ever, the next day, Odom fired Evans, telling him that he
was not needed anymore. Upon receiving his final pay-
check, Evans again found that he had not been given re-
porting time pay, and he protested to Odom. About an
hour later, Evans was given a supplementary check to
make up the difference.
Both Odom and Sanders were supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. Neither was called as a witness, and
the Company failed to explain why they were not called. I
have no reason to disbelieve Evans, and I credit his testi-
mony in full. The three witnesses who were called by the
Company figuratively fell over one another in an effort to
avoid taking the responsibility for Evan's discharge. Com-
pany President Nash testified, in sum, that he had nothing
to do with the discharge. Vice President Tucker did not
impress me as a candid witness. He testified in the manner
of one who is reciting a carefully prepared speech. Tucker
testified, in sum, that Evans was discharged because he
seemed to have lost interest in his job. However, like Nash,
Tucker attempted to avoid responsibility for the discharge,
testifying that he did not know whether Company Superin-
tendent Freddy Harrell or General Foreman Odom made
the decision to discharge Evans. Harrell, the last company
witness, parroted Tucker's line that Evans seemed to lose
interest in his job. However, he admitted that he had no
personal knowledge of whether Evans had ever been ad-
monished or even spoken to about this alleged lack of in-
terest. Evans testified that in fact his work had never been
criticized, that Foreman Sanders had said that he was one
of the best men on the job, and that Vice President Tucker
had complemented all of the employees on their work. I
credit Evans.
I find that the Company summarily discharged Evans
because he initiated and joined with his fellow employees
in an effort to obtain what they considered to be their
contractual right to reporting time pay. The Company
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Crown
Wrecking Co., Inc., 222 NLRB 958, 962 (1976), and cases
cited therein. The Company, through Foreman Sanders,
further violated Section 8(a)(l) by interrogating Evans
about whether he intended to persist in those efforts, and
by threatening to discharge him because he indicated that
he would do so. The Company was cost conscious about
the Hartsfield Airport project, and fearful that Evans' per-
sistence would cost it money. It is immaterial to the present
case whether Evans and the Union were correct in their
interpretation of the contract. Crown Wrecking Co., supra.2
2 The Company. through Evans. presented in evidence the "General
Working Rules" of the Ironworkers International Union. which provide in
part:
Reporting for Work. Two Hours Time
Section 12. Par. A. When an ironworker is ordered by the employer
or his representative to report for work and then through no fault of
such ironworker is not put to work or employed for less than two (2)
hours, the employer shall pay him for two (2) hours' time, weather
permitting work, provided such ironworker remains on the job during
the said twso (2) hours. On jobs of more than two (2) hours' duration, all
ironworkers shall be paid for the actual hours worked.
Par. B. Notwithstanding the contents of the above paragraph, the
832
GULF COAST STEEL. INC(.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Company is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the
Act.
2. By terminating Llewellyn Evans for engaging in pro-
tected concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.
and thereby discouraging membership in the Union. the
Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
3. By interrogating Evans about such activities, and
threatening him with discharge because of such activities.
the Company has further interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in.
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company has committed viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recom-
mend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that the Company discriminatorily termi-
nated Llewellyn Evans, it will be recommended that the
Company be ordered to offer him immediate and full
.reinstatement to his former job, or, if it no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings that he may have suffered
from the time of his discharge to the date of the Company's
offer of reinstatement. The backpay for said employee
shall be computed in accordance with the formula ap-
proved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest computed in the manner and amount
prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). 3 It will also be recommended that the Company be
required to preserve and make available to the Board. or its
agents, on request, payroll and other records to facilitate
the computation of backpay due.
The Company's conduct demonstrated a flagrant disre-
gard for the collective-bargaining rights of employees, and
their right to engage in concerted activity for their mutual
General Executive Board shall approve all allowance of reporting
time in cases where the Local Union and the employer agree to the
allowance of such reporting time.
Evans testified that this rule referred only to situatlins where weather Lon-
ditions precluded further work: i.e.. those situations expressly excluded
from article 9. sec. A, of the contract. Moreover, par B of the above rule
expressly permits collective-bargaining contracts which provide for reptrt-
ing time. Company counsel promised to present a union official toi lestis
about the rule. However, after consulting with a union representanixe who
was present in the heanng room, he failed to do so The inference is ,i.r-
ranted that the Union agrees with Evans' understanding if the rule In anr
event, as indicated, whether or not Evans was correct, the ('iompans had no
lawful nright to discharge him for seeking redress of what he considered to he
his contract rights.
3 See, generally. Isis Plumbhing & H eating (o,. 138I NI RB 71b. 717 721
(1962).
benefit. The Company willfully utilized the managenrent
prerogatives clause of its contract (which gave it sole dis-
cretion to discharge employees) as an excuse for discrimi-
natorily discharging Evans. thereby leaving him no re-
course but to file an unfair labor practice charge. Ihe
inference is warranted that the Company maintains an attl-
tude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with respect
to the protection of employee rights in general. Accord-
ingly. I shall recommend that the Compans be ordered to
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guarainteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Uipon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
IO(c) of the Act, I hereb, issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER
The Respondent. Gulf Coast Steel, Inc., Atlanta, Geor-
gia, its officers. agents, successors. and assigns, shall:
1. ('ease and desist from:
(a) I)ischarging emplo!ees or in an! other manner dis-
criminating against them with regard to their hire or tenure
of emplos!ment or any term of condition of employment.
because thes claimi rights under a collectise-bargaining
contract, or because they engage in any other union or
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing, or other mutual aid or protection.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or other re-
prisal because the, engage in such activities.
(c) Interrogating employees about their union or con-
certed actitiies or attitudes.
(d) In aln other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing emplosees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sars to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Llewellsn Evans immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or. if such job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights, and make him whole for losses he
suffered bs reason of the discrimination against him as set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Rem-
ed'."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records. social security payments records, timecards.
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sarN to analsie the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at its office and place of business in Atlanta,
Georgia. and at each of its jobsites, if possible. copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
In the nclei nlo excptlure.I ac filed Ias prosided hs Sei 102 46 of the
Rules and Realil tilon, f the \llhill
1
a I abor Relatlons Board. the findinre
ciinclut..lol, aild recollmnended O(rder herein shall, as provided in Set
1I)2 4S of the Rules and Rculitlt. ,,. he atdopted hs the Board aind heolle
Its fildin,,. incilustionl . and O(rder. and all oh lectlrls thereto shalil he
deemed I.sl\c ld f0l .A11 p lrp-iC I
In the event that this Order 1v entfried h .I J1tidlliClli .. t I fitd
Staces ( ourt of A.ppeals. the words in the tintmc icadili I',ted h\ (hOder
of the N.tional .bor Relatlills B .oard' hail rieadl e ),r l l'Lnbill l .
Judgmnent of the t nued Statei, ( mrt of .-\ppe].i, [ irt. ,, t )rdCr oi 0t
National I abothr Relations Board"
833
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Resondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily 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 the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
834