H. C. Smith Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1173 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

H. C. SMITH CONSTRUCTION CO
H. C. Smith Construction Co. and Bill P. Connors.
Case 19-CA-3907
March 14, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 25, 1968, Trial Examiner Maurice
Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
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 brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, H. C. Smith
Construction Co., Great Falls, Montana, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard at Great Falls, Montana, on June 20 and 21, 1968,
upon a complaint issued on March 27, 1968,' alleging that
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(I) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging Bill P
Connors, the Charging Party In its answer, Respondent
admitted the discharge but denied the commission of any
unfair labor practice The issue presented is whether
Connors was discharged because he engaged in a
protected activity
Upon the entire record, my observation of the
witnesses, and the brief filed by Respondent,' I make the
following
'Based upon a charge filed on January 10, 1968, by Bill P Connors
'It might have been helpful if the General Counsel had filed a brief
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS'
1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A The Evidence
1173
Beginning on August 14, 1967,1 Respondent
commenced work upon certain missile sites in Great Falls,
Montana and, among others, hired Bill P Connors as a
wireman-welder Connors was a member of Local 122,
which was party to a collective-bargaining agreement
covering Respondent's employees engaged in electrical
work
At about 9 30 p m. on September 27, during the
absence of General Foreman Coleman, the latter's
superior, Site Superintendent Hankins, requested Working
Foreman Sabo to go down into the "hole" and obtain an
electrical box for him Sabo went down and began looking
for the box. Connors, who was working in the hole at the
time, asked Sabo what he was doing Connors admits he
was merely "making conversation " When Sabo explained
Hankins' request, Connors stated that Sabo was not
supposed to take orders from Hankins and that he should
check the collective-bargaining agreement 5 Connors
testified that he was expressing his "own interpretation of
the working agreement" but that he "hoped he was
speaking for every man on the fob " Sabo left without the
box Upon Sabo's return from the hole, Hankins
immediately went down the hole and, upon seeing
Connors, asked why he had told Sabo not to pick up the
box Connors replied that under the collective-bargaining
agreement, a foreman was not permitted to take orders
from the site superintendent According to Connors,
Hankins stated, "Well, you are not the shop steward," to
which Connors replied, "I might not be the shop steward
but . every man on the job is a steward to the
agreement We have an agreement to live by You read it
all the time and you know what it reads" According to
Hankins, when Connors referred to the agreement,
Hankins asked him whether he was the spokesman for the
group, and when Connors answered in the negative,
Hankins stated, "well, it seems to me every time
something happens around here instead of working you
have your nose in it." Hankins then took the box and left
Shortly thereafter, when Connors came up from the
hole, he angrily accused Sabo of informing against him.
Sabo denied the accusation and a heated argument ensued
in the presence of a number of employees Hankins
arrived on the scene, and Connors again accused Sabo.
When Hankins stated that Sabo had not been an
informer, Connors asked why Hankins had come to him,
and the latter answered that Connors was very talkative
and appeared to be the spokesman for the men. Connors
replied that he was not a spokesman for anyone other
than himself Connors then apologized to Sabo, and the
men returned to work
At about 11.30 p m on the following day, September
28, Hankins told General Foreman Coleman that he
wanted the latter to give termination slips to Connors and
'No issue of commerce is presented The complaint alleges and the
answer admits fact which , I find, establish that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act Respondent also admits that
Local Union No 122, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
'All dates hereafter referred to relate to 1967 unless otherwise stated
'Sabo was a member of Local 122
174 NLRB No. 180
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Edgar, and requested that the two men be
summoned Coleman asked what the problem was and
Hankins replied that he did not know When Connors and
Edgars arrived, Coleman stated, "you guys have your
termination slips but I don't know why. I'm not giving
them to you " Connors asked Hankins what this was all
about, and Hankins replied, "I have nothing to do with
this, it just came out today that you are being
terminated." Hankins then tendered to each of them an
envelope containing a check and a termination slip
showing a discharge because "work not satisfactory "
After examining the slip, Connors handed it back to
Hankins Edgar refused to accept the tender Hankins
then offered the papers to Coleman who refused them,
stating "I will not give the checks to anybody unless they
have it coming." Hankins also tendered the Connors
papers to Foreman Sabo, who similarly refused to take
them because, according to his testimony, he "didn't feel
the termination was justified because the man was doing
his work " Hankins testified that all the crew disagreed
with the decision to terminate Connors
At the request of Connors and Edgar, Shop Steward
Terry was summoned. When he arrived shortly thereafter,
Coleman told him that Connors and Edgar were being
unfairly terminated. Terry then examined the termination
slips and asked Hankins for an explanation Hankins
answered that he had nothing to do with the termination
and, in response to Terry's inquiry, named General
Superintendent Cannon as the one who had prepared the
slips, but indicated his reluctance to call Cannon for a
conference Terry then reminded Hankins that the latter
had once before stated that he had never discharged
anyone on the project, and threatened to produce evidence
to the contrary and to call him a "liar." At that point,
Hankins admitted that he was responsible for the
terminations Terry testified that when he asked for a
reason, Hankins replied that "the man had to replace
three or four straps several times down in the access
hatch"; that after a discussion with the general foreman
and others, Terry ascertained that the straps had to be
replaced because the studs holding them were insecure as
the result of faulty battery equipment, that he asked
Hankins whether he thought it was fair to discharge an
employee for work performance brought about by faulty
material and equipment; that Hankins replied, "It dust has
to be that way, that is all there is to it"; that Terry asked
Hankins if he did not like Connors' personality; and that
he received no reply
Edgar testified that during the conversation, Hankins
said "it wasn't our work, we were doing this different, it
wasn't the work we had done, it was the work you hadn't
done, you didn't do enough of what you did do." He
further testified that in addition to referring to
unsatisfactory work, Hankins implied that Connors "was
a little too mouthy or something for him" and asked
Connors whether he was the spokesman for the crew, and
that Connors replied that he was spokesman only for
himself. Hankins, Coleman, Terry and Employees
McMillan and Weaver all testified that the only reason
for discharge discussed at the time was unsatisfactory
work.'
B Analysis and Conclusions
At the hearing, the General Counsel contended that
Respondent discharged Connors because he sought to
implement what he believed to be the requirements of the
collective-bargaining agreement covering Respondent's
employees, and that such discharge was unlawful
Respondent contends that the General Counsel has failed
to establish that Connors' discharge violated the Act I
agree with the General Counsel
1. Respondent first asserts that in attempting to
implement the agreement, Connors was acting alone and
not in concert with anyone, and hence was not engaged in
a concerted activity protected by the Act. In support of
this argument, Respondent points to Connors' admission
that he was just making conversation, to his denials that
he was speaking for anyone other than himself, and to the
fact that there is no evidence that any other employee
agreed with or acquiesced in his interpretation of the
collective-bargaining agreement The contention is without
merit. Connors admittedly was merely making
conversation when he asked Sabo what he was doing But
when Sabo explained that he was attempting to comply
with a request from Hankins, Connors invoked the
collective-bargaining agreement When Hankins then
sought an explanation from Connors, he again invoked the
agreement Although the interpretation of the contract
was his own and he did not purport to act as spokesman
for any of the other employees, Connors was engaged in
an attempt to enforce what he believed to be the correct
interpretation of an agreement which affected the rights of
employees in the unit Such an attempt constituted
concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act, and a
discharge therefore is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act Interboro Contractors, Inc , 157 NLRB 1295,' and
cases cited therein, B & M Excavating, Inc , 155 NLRB
1152, enfd per curiam 368 F 2d 624 (C A 9) 8 Indeed, in
Interboro and B & M, the Board expressly held that such
an activity was protected even if engaged in by one
employee alone And in E E G Co, Inc, 171 NLRB
No 137, the Board rejected the view that what it meant in
Interboro was that one employee alone acted as a
spokesman for the other employees, and held that an
employee engaged in protected concerted activity even
when he seeks to obtain for himself what he views as the
benefits of a collective-bargaining agreement
I find that when he invoked the collective-bargaining
agreement in his conversations with Sabo and Hankins,
Connors was engaging in a protected concerted activity
2. Respondent further contends that the evidence fails
to establish that Connors was discharged for invoking the
agreement, but rather shows that he was terminated
because of unsatisfactory work.
a. Respondent first points out that Connors'
conversations with Sabo and Hankins were not mentioned
as a reason for discharge either at the time of his
discharge' or at the subsequent union meeting when the
discharge was discussed. This argument does not support
Respondent's position Obviously, Hankins would not
admit that he discharged Connors because he engaged in a
'On cross-examination by Respondent , Terry testified that thereafter, the
two discharges were made the subject of a grievance under the
collective -bargaining agreement , that the minutes read at a union meeting
which he attended stated that the reason for discharge on the termination
slips of Connors and Edgar was changed from "work unsatisfactory" to
"unsatisfactory", and that so far as he knew , no other reason for the
discharges was discussed at the meeting
'Enfd 388 F 2d 495 (C A 2)
'In Interboro , the Board pointed out that the correctness of the
interpretation is irrelevant to the question whether it involves a protected
concerted activity
'I find that Edgar was wrong as to the occasion when Hankins accused
Connors of being the spokesman for the men , and that the accusation was
made on October 27 rather than when he was discharged on October 28
H. C. SMITH CONSTRUCTION CO.
protected activity. Indeed, Hankins at first denied that he
was even responsible for the discharge. Thus, Hankins'
failure to refer to Connors' conversations hardly tends to
prove that such conversations were not the motive for the
discharge. As for Connors, although it is true that he did
not accuse Respondent of an unfair labor practice at the
time of his discharge, this does not tend to show that no
unfair labor practice occurred With respect to the union
meeting, the record is insufficient to establish what was
discussed in connection with the discharge. If anything,
the proposed change in termination slips, so as to recite
"unsatisfactory" instead of "unsatisfactory work" as the
reason for discharge, suggests that a reason other than
unsatisfactory work was discussed at the meeting. But
even if not, this would prove little
b. Respondent next argues that there might be
justification for an inference that Connors' conversations
were the motive for his discharge if he had been the only
employee discharged, or if Edgar, who was discharged
along with Connors, had engaged in conduct similar to
that of Connors But the fact that Edgar did not engage in
similar conduct, Respondent asserts, makes such an
inference questionable This is a non-sequitur The
existence of a lawful motive for discharge of one employee
does not bespeak an equally lawful motive for the
simultaneous discharge of another employee involved in
different circumstances
c In further support of its claim that Connors was
discharged because of unsatisfactory work, Respondent
relies upon the evidence relating to prior complaints made
by supervisors concerning Connors' work, to a special
investigation of his work made by Hankins just before the
discharge, to Connors' previous employment record with
Respondent, to a conversation between Connors and
Director of Labor Relations Ferguson, and to Connors'
employment record with other employers The evidence
relating to these matters is as follows.
About 6 weeks before his discharge, Connors was
transferred from Hankins' crew to that of Site
Superintendent Sheppard; and about 2 weeks later, he was
transferred back to Hankins' crew. Hankins testified that
Connors' productivity had been poor, that he had
mentioned that fact to General Foreman Coleman but did
not know whether the latter had done anything about it,
that he had never asked that Connors be transferred to
another crew, and did not know the reason for Connors'
transfer from his crew Sheppard testified that Connors
was a good welder, that for the first several days of his
employment on his crew, Connors showed good promise,
that thereafter, he did little work, and that Sheppard
requested General Superintendent Cannon to transfer
Connors because, according to Sheppard's testimony, "I
thought possible personality clash I didn't want any part
of him working for me " He further testified that it was
necessary for Connors to re-do work, but that he had kept
no record of his dissatisfaction with Connors' work, and
that at the time of the transfer he was in the process of
transferring a number of employees 10
General Superintendent Cannon testified that Hankins-
and Sheppard had complained to him about the poo?i
quality and quantity of the work performed by Connors;
that at their request, he had inspected Connors' work and
found the quality to be good; that he was told that
Connors had been required to re-do some of the work;
and that he agreed that Connors' production was
"Union Steward Terry testified that labor shortages required frequent
transfers of employees
1175
insufficient." He could not recall the date of Sheppard's
complaint, but testified that his inspection at Hankins'
request occurred about two weeks before Connors'
discharge Cannon further testified that Sheppard had
asked that Connors be transferred out of his crew, and
that Cannon had once transferred Connors out of
Hankins' crew because ' the two men "were not getting
along " Labor Relations Manager Graham testified that
during his investigation after the discharge, Sheppard
reported that at the time of Connors' transfer, he had
complained of poor productivity, and that poor quantity
rather than the caliber of Connors' work was the principal
complaint
The record contains a copy of a written report, dated
October 28 and addressed to General Superintendent
Cannon, stating the amount of work performed by
Connors during the preceding three days. Hankins
testified that an average wireman-welder could perform
the amount of work shown in the report in 8 hours He
further testified that he prepared and mailed the report
the night before Connors was discharged, i e. on October
27. When his attention was called to the fact that the
report was dated October 28, Hankins testified that he
prepared the report after Connors and Edgar refused to
accept their termination slips He then testified that before
he tendered the termination slips, he made a special
investigation in which he counted the amount of work
which Connors had performed during the said 3 days; that
he gave that information to Cannon over the telephone,
expressed the view that Connors was not doing
satisfactory work, and stated that there was no reason to
retain him; that Cannon replied that he would have a
termination check prepared; and that Cannon did so At
one point in his testimony, he stated that he made his
investigation and talked to Cannon on October 27 and
that the check was promised for and delivered on October
28. At another point, he stated that he made inspections
on each of the three days preceding October 28, and that
he talked to Cannon in the early evening on October 28
Cannon testified that at about 12.30 a m. on October
28, while in bed, he received a telephone call from
Hankins who requested the discharge of Connors for
nonproduction; that in reply to an inquiry from Cannon,
Hankins stated that Connors' work had not improved, and
that Cannon stated that he would prepare Connors' check
When asked whether he knew of any reason why Hankins
should awaken him to discuss Connors, Cannon testified
that he had told him to call at any time that an employee
was to be fired
Connors testified that neither General Foreman
Coleman nor Foreman Sabo had ever told him that the
quality or quantity of his work was unsatisfactory, but
that on or about October 26, Coleman had stated to him
that Hankins had complained that the entire crew was
behind schedule He further testified that because of the
poor condition of the stud guns and faulty batteries, the
studs often failed to pass inspection or fell off and it
would be necessary for him to re-do his portion of the
work Coleman testified that Hankins frequently
complained that the crew was behind schedule, that
Connors' work was equal to that of the other employees,
and that he never told Connors that he was not keeping
up with the crew Sabo testified that the quality and
quantity of Connors' work were good, and his work was
equal or better than that of other employees performing
"Cannon testified that other employees were also required to re-do some
of their work
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the same duties Union Steward Terry testified that
although Hankins in the past had discussed with him the
poor work performed by two foremen and had given them
a trial period of a week or more before discharging them,
Hankins had never spoken to him about Connors' work;
that from personal observation, he believed that Connors'
work was satisfactory; that the wiremen-welders under
Hankins' supervision continuously complained to him of
inadequate battery equipment; that he had informed
Hankins that the men should have the equipment and
materials they needed if they were to be productive and
efficient, but that the battery equipment was still
unsatisfactory Tessman, a fellow employee who worked
with Connors, testified that the latter was usually the first
to start work and the last to leave Weaver, a working
foreman who had worked in the same area as Connors,
testified that the latter had performed good work and as
fast as others
With respect to Connors' prior employment, the
evidence shows that he first worked for Respondent at
Conrad, Montana in October 1966, that he was
discharged because, according to his termination slip, he
argued with the superintendent and told Respondent to
leave Montana; but that he was later rehired and
completed the job.'2 In February 1967, Connors was
employed by Respondent in Cheyenne, Wyoming and was
discharged. Connors testified that the reason for discharge
shown on his termination slip was his refusal to work
overtime Nevins, the Cheyenne site superintendent,
testified that the working hours had been 7 to 4.30, that
they were changed to 8 to 5.30, that Connors refused to
work such hours and left at 4.30, and that he was
thereupon discharged. Nevins further testified that the
quality and quantity of work performed by Connors on
the Cheyenne job were unsatisfactory, but that he was not
consulted in connection with the discharge involved in this
proceeding Labor Relations Manager Graham testified
that he learned the above facts relating to Connors' prior
employment with Respondent through an investigation
made after Connors' discharge. When asked why Connors
was employed at Great Falls in view of his past
discharges, Graham testified that Respondent accepted
any employee referred by Local 122 unless it had
experienced a problem with the employee on the current
job
With respect to his conversation with Connors, Director
of Labor Relations Ferguson testified that a few months
prior to the hearing, when Respondent was having union
and other difficulties, Foreman Hankel told him that
Connors wanted to work on the Great Falls job, had been
discharged from prior jobs by Respondent, did not want
anything held against him, and wanted to complete this
job; that Labor Relations Manager Graham could give
him no information regarding Connors at the time, that at
his request, Connors came to see him; that he told
Connors that his past would not be held against him; that
if Connors did a good job, there was no reason why he
could not obtain a job as foreman or general foreman, but
that he did not promise such a job Ferguson could not
recall in what month the conversation took place Connors
testified that the conversation occurred on the day of his
transfer to Site Superintendent Sheppard's crew; that
"Connors testified that prior to his discharge , he was involved in two
disputes with Respondent , that on one occasion , he took the position that
the men should be furnished an additional meal when asked to work 14 or
15 hours a day, and that on another occasion , he was involved in an
argument over whether some of the employees had been underpaid
Ferguson told him that he did his work well and that he
was not afraid to speak up; that Respondent wanted him
to be a foreman because it needed such a man to get the
job moving quickly; but that he did not accept the job
offer.
With regard to his employment elsewhere, Connors
testified that he follows construction work, that he had
held about eight jobs within the past 2 years, and that he
was discharged from two of them
I find that neither Connors' past work performance nor
the results of Hankins' investigation were motivating
factors in the discharge of Connors No reason is shown
for his two discharges by other employers His discharges
at Respondent's Conrad and Cheyenne sites were not for
unsatisfactory work; and despite the testimony of Nevins,
the Cheyenne site superintendent, that his work was
unsatisfactory, Connors was rehired at Great Falls In
addition, there is nothing to show that the discharges or
Nevins' opinion were known to either Hankins or Cannon
when they agreed to terminate Connors At Great Falls,
Cannon transferred Connors from Hankins' crew, not
because of unsatisfactory work, but because of a
personality clash. Moreover, despite his testimony that
Connors' work was unsatisfactory, Hankins did not
request, and did not know the reason for, the transfer.
The record contains conflicting evidence as to whether
Sheppard, to whose crew Connors was transferred,
complained to Cannon about the quality as well as the
quantity of the work performed by Connors. In any event,
Cannon admitted that the quality was good Moreover,
the record shows that Sheppard requested Connors'
transfer because of a personality clash, and there is no
evidence that anything was said to Connors about poor
work or low productivity. The conversation with
Ferguson, even if the latter's version were accepted,
involved a discussion of the discharges at Conrad and
Cheyenne which, as noted, were not for unsatisfactory
work
As for Hankins's special investigation of Connors'
work, I do not credit his testimony that he recommended
the discharge of Connors on October 28 as a result of the
investigation He gave conflicting evidence as to when he
made the investigation There is no evidence that he
discussed Connors' work or his investigation with the
latter's immediate superiors, General Foreman Coleman
and Foreman Sabo, who believe that the quantity as well
as the quality of Connors' work were good The haste
with which he made his recommendation for discharge
and its timing were, to say the least, rather unusual There
is no satisfactory explanation as to why it was necessary
for Hankins to call Cannon during the night at 12.30 a.m.
to recommend discharge, shortly after Connors invoked
the collective-bargaining agreement If Hankins had truly
been concerned about Connors' work, there appears to be
no reason why he could not have waited until the
following day to talk to Cannon Nor is there any
explanation as to why, unlike the procedure followed in
other cases, Hankins failed to warn Connors and give him
a trial period before recommending discharge In addition,
Hankins admittedly tried to hide his responsibility for the
discharge by falsely denying that he had anything to do
with it It is uncontradicted that the battery equipment
was in bad shape, and that Hankins had been told by
Union Steward Terry that the men needed satisfactory
equipment It is thus not surprising that when Terry
explained that Connors had found it necessary to re-do
some work because of faulty equipment, Hankins did not
contradict the explanation, but merely replied that "It just
H C SMITH CONSTRUCTION CO.
has to be that way " Finally, I note that Hankins accused
Connors of being the spokesman for the men, when the
latter invoked the collective- bargaining agreement. For
these reasons, as well as Hankins' demeanor while
testifying,.1 reject his explanation, and find that Hankins
used the claim of unsatisfactory work as a pretext to
conceal the true motivation for his recommendation his
dissatisfaction with Connors' interpretation of the
collective-bargaining agreement It is immaterial that
Hankins misled Cannon into believing that poor work was
the reason for his recommendation Since Cannon relied
on the recommendation, Respondent must accept
responsibility for the discharge Accordingly, I find that
by discharging Connors because of his protected concerted
activity, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act,
as alleged in the complaint
H. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in an unfair
labor practice , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which
I find necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the
unfair labor practice and to effectuate the policies of the
Act
Because the record does not disclose whether
Respondent ' s operations at Great Falls have been
completed, the reinstatement portion of the recommended
order is phrased in the alternative . Interboro Contractors,
Inc , supra In the event that the operations have not yet
been completed , I will recommend that Respondent offer
Bill P Connors immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially 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 as a result of the discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
would have earned as wages during the period from the
date of his discharge to the date on which Respondent
offers reinstatement as aforesaid , less his net earnings, if
any, during the said period The loss of pay under the
order recommended shall be computed in the manner set
forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
In the event the aforesaid operations have been
completed , I will recommend that the foregoing be
modified to the following extent. Respondent need not
offer reinstatement to Bill P. Connors , but shall instead
send him a letter stating that , notwithstanding his
discharge , he will be considered eligible for employment in
the future at any of Respondent ' s projects , if he should
choose to apply for employment at any of them." In
addition , Respondent shall include in the letter to Connors
a copy of the notice which would otherwise have been
posted if the operations had not been completed , and shall
mail copies of the notice to all of its employees employed
at the Great Falls operations on October 28, 1967
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Bill P Connors, Respondent engaged
in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
"This does not mean that Respondent is required to offer Connors
employment at other projects , it need only consider him for employment
on a nondiscriminatory basis
1177
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that H C Smith Construction Co
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because of their protected concerted activities,
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action
(a) In the event that Respondent's operations at Great
Falls, Montana are still in progress, offer to Bill P.
Connors immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or a substantially equivalent position, and make him
whole for any loss- of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against him, in the
manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The
Remedy "
(b) 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 Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces
(c) In the event that such operations have been
completed, make Bill P. Connors whole as aforesaid for
any loss of pay by reason of the discrimination against
him, and assure him of his future eligibility for
employment, in the manner and to the extent set forth in
the section entitled "The Remedy "
(d) In the event that such operations are still in
progress, post at said project copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix "14 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall,
after being signed by Respondent's representatives, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and remain posted as long as Respondent's operations on
the Great Falls project are in progress, but for a period no
longer than 60 days from the date of posting, in
conspicuous places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material
(d) In the event that such operations have been
completed, mail copies of the aforesaid notice to the
employees specified in the section herein entitled "The
Remedy."
(e) Preserve and upon 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
and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be 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
Appeals, Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 19 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
completed, assure Bill P Connors that he is eligible for
future employment with us
WE WILL make Bill P Connors whole for any loss of
earnings which he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him.
APPENDIX Dated By
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 National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees, or in any like or related manner
interfere with them in any way in the exercise of their
guaranteed statutory rights.
WE WILL offer to Bill P. Connors immediate and full
reinstatement to his old job or to a substantially
equivalent job, if we have not completed our operations
at Great Falls, Montana
WE WILL, if our operations on that project have been
H. C. SMITH
CONSTRUCTION CO.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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 Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 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, Republic Bldg
10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101, Telephone 583-7473