Howard S. Wright Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 1007 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

WRIGHT-SCHUCHART-HARBOR
Howard S. Wright Co., Schuchart Industrial Contrac-
tors and Harbor Mechanical, Inc. d/b/a Wright-
Schuchart-Harbor and Donald G. Eckenrode
Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local No. 82,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada , AFL-CIO-CLC and
Donald G. Eckenrode . Cases 19-CA-7226 and 19-
CB-2443
January 13, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND WALTHERS
On September 21, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
David G. Heilbrun issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed
limited exceptions in the form of a letter.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent Employer, Howard S. Wright Co., Schuchart
Industrial Contractors and Harbor Mechanical, Inc.
d/b/a Wright-Schuchart-Harbor, Tacoma, Washing-
ton, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and
the Respondent Union, Plumbers and Steamfitters
Union Local No. 82, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO-CLC, Tacoma, Washington, its officers,
agents and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph A(1)(b):
"(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph B(1)(b):
"(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section
7 of the Act."
1007
3. Substitute the attached notices for those of the
Administrative Law Judge.
1 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adoptproforma the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's findings that Respondent Employer violated Sec 8(a)(3)
and (1) and that Respondent Union violated Sec 8 (b)(2) and ( 1)(A) of the
Act in this proceeding.
In his exceptions, the Charging Party alleges matters that apparently were
not before the Administrative Law Judge Accordingly, they are inappropri-
ate for our consideration in this Decision.
The Administrative Law Judge notes in fn 16 of his Decision that the
General Counsel indicated in his brief that Respondent Employer had
reinstated the Charging Party The Administrative Law Judge reasoned that
if the reinstatement had occurred the remedy prescribed by him would be
moot We do not adopt the view of the Administrative Law Judge Since the
rt cord is unclear concerning the Charging Party's remstatement, we enter
our usual reinstatement remedy without regard to the view expressed by the
Administrative Law Judge at fn 16 of his Decision In any event , this matter
is best left to the compliance stage of this proceeding
2 While the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent Employer
had violated Sec 8(aX3) and ( 1) of the Act, and Respondent Union had
violated Sec 8(b)(2) and (IXA) of the Act he inadvertently failed to include
the broad cease-and-desist order appropriate in those circumstances. We
herein correct that error.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We will not discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employee to discourage membership
in, or activities on behalf of, Plumbers and
Steamfitters Union Local No. 82, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of rights protected by the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL reinstate Donald G. Eckenrode to his
former position of employment without prejudice
to seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL share equally with Local No. 82 in
paying Donald G. Eckenrode for any loss of
earnings suffered by reason of his discharge on
April 28,1975.
HOWARD S. WRIGHT
Co., SCHUCHART
INDUSTRIAL
CONTRACTORS AND
HARBOR MECHANICAL,
INC. D/B/A WRIGHT-
SCHUCHART-HARBOR
227 NLRB No. 158
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause
Howard S. Wright Co., Schuchart Industrial
Contractors and Harbor Mechanical, Inc. d/b/a
Wright-Schuchart-Harbor to discharge or other-
wise discriminate against any employee to dis-
courage membership in, or activities on behalf of,
any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights protect-
ed by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT object to immediate reinstate-
ment of Donald G. Eckenrode to his former
position of employment without prejudice to
seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL share equally with Wright-Schuchart-
Harbor in paying Donald G. Eckenrode for any
loss of earnings suffered by reason of his discharge
on April 28, 1975.
PLUMBERS AND
STEAMFITTERS UNION
LOCAL No. 82, UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE
UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, AFL-CIO-CLC
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at Tacoma, Washington, on June 22 and
23, 1976, based upon charges filed on May 12, 1975, and
consolidated complaint issued on March 31, 1976, alleging
that Howard S. Wright Co., Schuchart Industrial Contrac-
tors and Harbor Mechanical, Inc. d/b/a Wright-Schuchart-
Harbor, called the Employer, violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
that Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local No. 82,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO-CLC, called the Union, violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). This devolves to whether the
I Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
2 All dates and named months hereafter are in 1975, unless indicated
otherwise
3 The document provided that materials, supplies, or equipment may,
regardless of source, be used "without restriction" in the fabrication and
assembly of modules This notion is sharply "contrary" to "existing [UA]
work rules" respecting unlabeled pipe No party elected to place into
evidence actual UA work rules of the local geographic area
Employer discharged Donald G. Eckenrode on April 28,
1975, to discourage him from engaging in protected activity
or, alternatively, because of the Union's misrepresenta-
tions, made in breach of an asserted duty to fairly represent
Eckenrode, that he had caused an unauthorized work
stoppage and was otherwise engaged in unprotected activi-
ties.
Upon the entire record,' my observation of the witnesses
and consideration of posthearing briefs, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
INVOLVED
The Employer, a joint venture engaged at Tacoma,
Washington, in construction of oil flow and gas compres-
sion modules, annually purchases goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 which are delivered directly to
its site from outside Washington, for which alone I find it to
be engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5).
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Facts and Discussion
Under contract management of The Ralph M. Parsons
Company, the Employer performed Increment 1 fabrica-
tion of discrete structures for the Arco Prudhoe Bay
(Alaska pipeline) project.2 In April the site consisted of
several functional areas where 1,500 persons were em-
ployed. A unique "Project Stabilization Agreement"3
existed between the Employer and Union as a signatory
subcontractor and local union, respectively, while wages
and fringes germane to Eckenrode's trade applied by
reference from a 1975-77 labor-management agreement
between the Plumbers and Pipefitters Council of the
Northwest (of which the Union was a part) and the
Mechanical Contractor Associations of Washington (of
which the Employer was not).
Eckenrode, a member of the Union employed at the site
since about February, performed layout and expediting
duties under supervision of Foreman Don Septon. Around
7:30 a.m. on April 28 a truck carrying pipe appeared in area
E adjacent to module 4922. Eckenrode observed this from
the scaffolding of nearby module 4956 where he was
working routinely with Allen Rygg. Eckenrode went over to
perhaps read and copy numbers from this incoming
material. He discussed the pipe's lack of union label with
Rigging Foreman Bob Meade, whose crew was then
preparing to unload.4 Eckenrode stated he might bring
intraunion charges against Meade were this done, then left
4 This load, an ultimate component of module 4922, was completely
placed on the ground within about 1-1/2 hours. An earlier and similar load
arriving on April 22 had, without delay, been placed on the module's
opposite side prior to installation. This first unlabeled load generated
controversy which abated upon ascertainment by Mechanical Superinten-
dent Robert Vern Clouse from Union Business Manager Howard E. McCall
on authority of UA International Representative James L. McClain, Jr , that
WRIGHT-SCHUCHART-HARBOR 1009
to telephone Shop Steward H. Russell Peters. He resumed
working with Rygg after occupying about 15 minutes in
these steps . Around 10 a.m. Peters approached area E and
Eckenrode got down again to express his perception that
union work rules forbade this pipe from the job. Peters
contradicted this and Eckenrode, who consumed about 10
minutes away again from module 4956 while so conversing,
retired unconvinced with a mind to review written material
on the point at his leisure . About quitting time that
afternoon Assistant to the Mechanical Superintendent
Tommy Copeland and General Foreman Richard Worley
informed him of discharge for leaving his workplace and
stopping others from working.
Clouse testified that he determined this action after
Peters advised of Eckenrode's quarrelsome interference
with the unloading process. Clouse also vacillatingly
recalled corroboration of the report from area E's superin-
tendent, Martin Reiter. This individual denied any knowl-
edge of complications relating to the second truckload of
pipe until informed by Clouse, while Peters recalled only an
unsolicited midday briefing from Clouse on "the problem
with the pipe" followed by midafternoon advice from
Clouse that Eckenrode would be terminated for leaving his
work station.
After winnowing this extensive record a narrow band of
salient dynamics is revealed.5 The general context is that of
shibboleth relating to a union label ("bug") on prefabri-
cated pipe reaching the site, coupled with UA members'
presumed reflex solidarity toward objectives of the organi-
zations The first load of April 22 was routinely unloaded
by a rigging crew innocently unaware of its embargoeable
characteristic.7 The resultant awkward situation required
concerned attention of several functionaries, culminating in
McClain's "permission/orders" that such future deliveries
be unloaded but not necessarily installed.8
At the working level members viewed this departure from
established precept with dismay, but acquiesced in advice
of their representatives to the point that by April 28 riggers
performed without cavil.9 Eckenrode's own involvement
prefabricated pipe ordered prior to May 20, 1974 (as this was), must in all
manner be handled and worked upon by UA members at the site Module
4922 was not one of approximately six assigned to Septon's crew
5 I find it inappropriate to significantly treat Employer's work records
(daily time reports) as they were credibly rendered unreliable indicators of
place, date, or sequence of employee tasks by the actual preparers (foremen)
In similar vein the business practices relating to receipt and delivery of
incoming material at the site are irrelevant when it is accepted, as I do, that
Eckenrode was formally and continuingly assigned (regardless of whether
wisely done) to involve himself in the property control function of area E's
toolroom
6 The pertinent "PPC/MCA" contract incorporates union "Working
Rules" and, in its sec 34, invites imperfect understanding oftb- Abject by
phraseology mandating performance ofjobsite fabrication by "UA members
under the terms of this AGREEMENT" Additionally, sec 10 of the UA
constitution contains organic provisions respecti_g a union label and the
related "duty" of members
r In this and other regards concerning actual happenings at and around
the truckloads of pipe, I credit Rygg, Meade, and riggers Leon Jascur and
Dennis Fouche in preference to the utterly unimpressive recollection (or
belief) of Clouse on the points
8 No explanation of the "grandfather" date May 20, 1974, was advanced,
in terms of language in the Project Stabilization Agreement (effective for 3
years from November 1, 1974), that seemingly freed the Employer from any
strictures respecting unlabeled pipe This gap is immaterial since either basis
permits the circumstance of installing such pipe, as was here done with both
loads by early May
was both belated and fortuitous. He had learned only
casually of reaction to the prior load and merely happened
to be in a working location warranting inspectional
approach to this next one. While he spoke alarmingly to
Meade, it exerted no effect on the latter's job performance
and Eckenrode's total absence from his principally assigned
duties on the scaffolding of module 4956 was affected only
by the minutes spent phoning to Peters and later conversing
briefly with him. Cf. Napoleon Steel Contractors, Inc., 194
NLRB 783, 786. As conduct arguably related to contract
administration, these moments were cloaked with legal
protectiveness of Section 7. Cf. Ernst Construction, Division
of Ernst Steel Corporation, 212 NLRB 78 (1974); Stone and
Webster Engineering Corporation, 209 NLRB 783 (1974);
Bob's Casing Crews, Inc., 192 NLRB 1 (1971). Vice arose
when both Respondents restrained and coerced Eckenrode
while taking coordinatedly discriminatory action.
It is obvious that Clouse acted only upon influence of
Peters. Copeland claims no significant personal knowledge
while Reiter disclaims being a conduit of any information
that would indict Eckenrode. Meade, Septon, and other
employees at the scene all deny that a work stoppage
actually occurred. It is compelling to conclude that Peters,
acting out a threatened intent voiced earlier to journeyman
pipefitter James Pelela, petulantly prevailed on Clouse to
remove Eckenrode as a reportedly undesirable troublemak-
er.10 Such a conclusion is readily supportable from Peters'
critical predisposition with Eckenrode for "raising [several
prior] problems," his angry reaction to the resurrected
subject in general , and Meade's pointed criticism for
unstewardliness in particular, coupled with complete lack
of any sensible basis for Clouse to act at all without
prodding. This is further evident upon noting Copeland's
undenied statement that the discharge was "for some other
[than as recorded] reason." i i
In context of this analysis, General Counsel correctly
contends that N.L.RB. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21
(1964) is applicable.12 Under this an employer discharges at
its peril even upon mistaken good faith belief that the
9 Original consternation was dispelled in part by a meeting held with
riggers soon following April 22 at which representatives of the Employer and
Union explained the variance from traditional work rules I expressly find
that no similar meeting occurred for general pipefitters until after Ecken-
rode's discharge and that he was not in attendance at a union meeting held on
the evening of April 22 where that day's incident was questioned
10 Peters does not deny this testimony, instead failing only to recall
"specifically [discussing I the problem " with Pelela.
11 The Employer has failed to establish existence of a jobsite rule that
literally prohibited employees from leaving their work stations Further,
Eckenrode had been effectively assigned the task of checking pipe arrival
which sporadically necessitated his movement around area E In keeping
with this he created no work stoppage of himself or others while examining
the April 28 load, even for the narrow purpose of ascertaining its unlabeled
character In this regard I find, on the basis of persuasively credible
testimony by Septon, Meade, Rygg, Jascur, and Fouche, that the second load
arrived for unloading on the opposite (or easterly) side of module 4922 from
the first load This tends to legitimatize Eckenrode's gratuitous monitoring of
jobsite conditions since the module's bulk obscured the first load's identical-
ness of appearance A final matter of significance, left uncontradicted by any
witness of either Respondent, is that the "number of people standing
around" during unloading on April 28 were in substantial part ironworkers
present to remove blocking equipment.
12 Respondents' partial reliance on Elk Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 333
(1950), and J Ziak & Sons, Inc, 152 NLRB 380 (1965), respectively, is
misplaced since both cited cases are fully distinguishable on the facts.
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affected employee was engaged in provocative conduct
unprotected by the Act. Cf. Loggins Meat Co., Inc., 206
NLRB 303 (1973). Should such conduct instead prove to be
protected, the bona fides are unavailing as an 8(a)(1)
defense.13 In the alternative the Employer's action has also
discouraged membership in a labor organization by reason
of inhibiting ordinary means of assuring contract benefits
(or presumed benefits). With the complex, interrelated
written collective-bargaining verbiage that applied to this
jobsite, it is reasonable to expect that a union member
might look askance at apparent inroads against principles
of his trade. The key factor is incorporation of union work
rules as found in the PPC/MCA document, this becoming
as much a justification for Eckenrode's conduct as the
special handling exception was to fault him. In reasoning as
I do, there is mindfulness of Septon's grudging admission
that Eckenrode was not, in the purest sense, to formally
expedite pipe for module 4922. Thus Section 8(a)(3) was
violated, a finding necessarily related to allegations against
the Union. See Chatham Manufacturing Company, Inc., 221
NLRB 1760 (1975). Cf. Pate Manufacturing Company, 197
NLRB 793 (1972); State Mechanical Constructors, Inc., 191
NLRB 393 (1971).
Peters' apparent motivation must be pieced together from
scanty evidence. This paucity seems present both because
true subjective resolve is rarely admitted to when adverse,
and because mobility of persons in and around this
complex construction site tends to yield only episodic
snatches. What is apparent suffices to support a reasonable
inference embracing Miranda-type arbitrariness and Peters'
unlawfully causative role in this discharge.14 The April 22
load revealed Peters as woefully lacking key policy knowl-
edge respecting major functional operations of his trade.
The union meeting that evening saw "numerous conversa-
tions . . . concerning the handling of this pipe" and Peters
perpetuated some dereliction to the point that Meade and
Fouche were consciously dismayed by his lack of commu-
nication to all affected members.15 While Meade declines
to characterize his April 28 discussion with Peters (follow-
ing completion of picking off and setting down the load) he
does assume "an exchange," recalled by Peters as "more
words" with Meade than with Eckenrode and vividly by
Eckenrode as veritable "screaming" by an "excited"
Meade. Finally, Peters depicts the key conversation with
Eckenrode as "heated [not] friendly," although little reason
appears for him to have so viewed it from the basically civil
approach described by Eckenrode and corroborated by
Rygg who had "just them two" in his field of vision for that
10-minute period. The inviting inference that arises from
this configuration of proof is readily accepted up 't further
credible showing that Peters angrily uttered to Pelela the
19 The rationale is exemplified in this frequently,,uoted passage
In sum, § 8(a)(1) is violated if it is shown that the discharged employee
was at the time engaged in a protected activity, that the employer knew
it was such, that the basis of the discharge was an alleged act of
misconduct in the course of that activity, and that the employee was not,
in fact, guilty of that misconduct Burnup & Sims, supra at 23.
14 Miranda Fuel Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 181 (1962), enforcement
denied 326 F 2d 172 (C.A 2, 1963) Cf Ashley Hickham-Uhr Co, 210
NLRB 32 (1974)
is This facet dovetails with Pelela's testimony that the situation of
unlabeled pipe was to be explained to members in "a letter" planned for
circulation after April 28
precise intention that led to Eckenrode 's discharge. No
better thread is present that this background , tied to
Clouse 's testimony that Peters stated "we had trouble with
one fitter out there" on a module unrelated to 4922 , leading
ultimately to a rather suprised Reiter learning from Clouse
that Eckenrode "was the cause of the trouble , was stopping
the work [and ] would have to go." In such circumstances
the Union , on the basis of Peters ' action , has exceeded
Miranda conduct and directly restrained protected Section
7 activities while simultaneously causing the Employer's
8(a)(3) violation . Cf. R-M Framers, Inc., 207 NLRB 36, 44
(1973); International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
18, AFL-CIO, 204 NLRB 681 (1973); Yellow Freight
System, Inc., 197 NLRB 979 (1972); International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 71, AFL-CIO
(The Wagner-Smith Company), 187 NLRB 899 (1971).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer, by discharging Eckenrode because he
engaged in protected activities and to discourage his
membership in a labor organization, has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
2. The Union, by coercively restraining Eckenrode's
protected activities and by causing the Employer to
discriminate against him in violation of Section 8(a)(3), has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondents cease and desist
from their unfair labor practices, that the Employer
reinstate 16 Eckenrode to his former position without
prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, that the
Union execute written notice stating it has no objection to
such reinstatement, that Respondents jointly and severally
make Eckenrode whole with backpay as provided in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and that
Respondents each post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 17
A. Respondent Employer, Howard S. Wright Co.,
Schuchart Industrial Contractors and Harbor Mechanical,
Inc. d/b/a Wright-Schuchart-Harbor, Tacoma, Washing-
ton, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
16 The consolidated complaint alleges that Eckenrode has not been
reinstated , however, General Counsel 's brief refers to such action "in
January 1976." In view of this ambiguity, I fashion a reinstatement remedy
which , if moot, shall constitute mere surplusage.
17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
WRIGHT-SCHUCHART-HARBOR 1011
(1) Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of, Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local No. 82, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization,
by discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment because of union or
protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
(2) Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Reinstate Donald G. Eckenrode to his former position
of employment without prejudice to seniority or other
rights and privileges and, jointly and severally with Respon-
dent Union herein, make him whole for any loss of earnings
incurred as a result of being discharged on April 28, 1975.
(b) 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 under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Tacoma, Washington, jobsite copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A." 18 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19 , after being duly signed by Respondent Employ-
er's representative, shall be posted by it 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. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Employer 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 date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Union, Plumbers and Steamfitters
Union Local No. 82, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO-CLC, its
officers, agents, and representatives , shall:
(1) Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Howard S. Wright
Construction Co., Schuchart Industrial Contractors, and
Harbor Mechanical , Inc. d/b/a Wright-Schuchart-Harbor,
or any other employer , to discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of
the Act.
(2) Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Respondent Employer herein, in writing, that
no objection is interposed to immediate reinstatement of
Donald G . Eckenrode to his former position of employ-
ment without prejudice to seniority or other rights and
privileges and, jointly and severally with Respondent
Employer , make him whole for any loss of earnings
incurred as a result of being discharged on April 28, 1975.
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B."19 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19 , after being duly signed by Respondent Union's
representative , shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted . Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any
other material.
(c) Furnish the Regional Director signed copies of
"Appendix B" for posting by Respondent Employer , if it is
willing , at places where notices to employees are customari-
ly posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director , in writing , within 20
days from the date of this Order , what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
is In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By the National Labor Relations Board "
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant 19 See fn 18, supra