O. B. Williams Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1024 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
O. B. Williams Company and Peter Hendrickson
and Millmen Union Local 383, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters, Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO. Case 19-CA-11301
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On June 17, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
James S. Jenson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision.
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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' 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, O. B. Williams
Company, Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Member Jenkins would compute interest in accordance with his par-
tial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB No. I (1980).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES S. JENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Seattle, Washington, on No-
vember 6 and 7, 19 79 ,1 based on a complaint and amend-
ed complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region
19 on May 31 and June 14, respectively, pursuant to a
charge filed on April 13 and amended on May 1 and
June 13. The amended complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent: (1) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by solic-
iting the withdrawal of charges filed with the City of Se-
All dates are in 1979, unless otherwise stated
252 NLRB No. 146
attle Human Rights Department, threatening the job se-
curity of two employees if they did not withdraw those
charges, and directing the Union's shop steward to
obtain withdrawal of said charges; (2) violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by (a) withholding from employees
Peter Hendrickson and Felice Fascia I week's wages to
which they were entitled pursuant to an arbitration
award, and (b) laying off Hendrickson on March 30, and
refusing to reemploy him, all because of a desire to re-
taliate against said employees for filing grievances with
the Union and charges with the Seattle Human Rights
Commission; and (3) violated Section 8(a)(2) by virtue of
the fact that one of its supervisors has been a trustee of
the Union, a member of its executive committee, and,
otherwise, actively participated in internal union affairs.
The Respondent filed an answer denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices, and pleading as affirmative
defenses that (1) Hendrickson was laid off because he
was not as qualified or competent as other workmen re-
tained by the Respondent, and that he was a discipline
problem and would not accept constructive criticism;
and (2) the dispute between the Respondent and Hen-
drickson was resolved by binding arbitration, wherein it
was determined that the primary reason for Hendrick-
son's discharge was a personality conflict with his super-
visor, and that thereafter, all actions of the Respondent,
including Hendrickson's subsequent layoff and backpay
payments, were a good-faith compliance with the arbitra-
tion award. All parties were afforded full opportunity to
appear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs
were filed by both the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent, and have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having
considered the post-hearing briefs, I make the follow-
ing: '2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is engaged in the business of manufac-
turing architectural woodwork in Seattle, Washington.
The Respondent's annual gross receipts exceed $500,000
and it annually ships, purchases, and receives goods
which meet the Board's direct or indirect outflow and
inflow standard of $50,000, respectively. It is admitted
and found that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.3
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Millmen's Union Local 383, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2 Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected.
: Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958)
1024
() 13 WILLIAMS COMPANY
Itl. ISSUEI-S
I. Whether the Respondent's shop superintendent so-
licited the withdrawal of charges filed with the Seattle
Human Rights Department of the threatened the job se-
curity of two employees if they failed to withdraw those
charges; and whether he directed the Union's shop ste-
ward to intervene to obtain withdrawal of the charges.
2. Whether Respondent withheld I week's wages due
to employees, pursuant to an arbitration award, and laid
off one of the employees in retaliation for filing a griev-
ance with the Union and a charge with the Seattle
Human Rights Depertment, and thereafter refusing to
withdraw them.
3. Whether Respondent, through participation in af-
fairs of the Union by its shop superintendent, has unlaw-
fully interfered in the administration of the Union.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES
A. The Setting
Respondent is engaged in the business of manufactur-
ing architectural woodwork, employing approximately
35 to 40 employees in primarily journeymen and appren-
tice cabinetmaker clsssifications. The president and gen-
eral manager for the past 15 years has been Leon
McCoy. His brother, Mick McCoy, a company estima-
tor, is in charge in Leon's absence. Louis Nokes is the
shop superintendent over the three buildings containing
the warehouse and the cutting, molding, door, frame,
and the cabinet departments. Mike Howard has been the
cabinet department foreman for the past 2 years. The Re-
spondent admits, and it is found, that Leon McCoy,
Louis Nokes, and Mike Howard are supervisors and
agents of the Respondent.
The Respondent and the Union have had an amicable
collective-bargaining relationship for many years, and are
currently parties to an agreement which contains a griev-
ance and arbitration provision. The only grievance that
has ever gone to arbitration is the one involving the Feb-
ruary 2 discharges of Peter Hendrickson, the Charging
Party in this case, and Felice Fascia, and which resulted
in their reinstatement "with full pay" pursuant to the ar-
bitrator's decision.
The record shows that Hendrickson was initially hired
by the Respondent as an apprentice cabinetmaker in No-
vember 1975, and was laid off in February 1976. He was
rehired in April 1976, and quit his employment in April
1977 following a dispute with Nokes. Later that year,
Hendrickson worked for another employer and contin-
ued his apprenticeship until the entire work force was
laid off in January 1978. Thereafter, Hendrickson spoke
to Nokes on several occasions at union meetings about
coming back to work in the Respondent's cabinet depart-
ment. In the meantime, Mike Howard, who had been
Hendrickson's instructor at apprenticeship school, had
become the cabinet shop foreman. 4 While Nokes appar-
ently had some reluctance about rehiring Hendrickson in
light of their earlier dispute, which had resulted in Hen-
drickson's quitting, Howard felt that he would not have
' Howard has been a journeyman since 197()0 and appears to have been
quite a bit younger than most of the other men in the cabinet shop
any problem working with Hendrickson, and conse-
quently Hendrickson was rehired on March 27, 1978.
It appears that during the summer of 1978, the cabinet
shop was working under a great deal of pressure because
of several major projects. Apparently because of the
pressures, Howard's relationship with the men began to
change and he became short tempered and critical of
them. Hendrickson felt that he and Fascia were the re-
cipients of most of Howard's remarks. Howard appears
to have made remarks to Fascia about his age and Italian
heritage, which Fascia and Hendrickson found offen-
sive.5 Consequently, Hendrickson took it upon himself to
talk to Howard on several occasions about his behavior
and use of demeaning language. 6
B. The Grievance and Seattle Human Rights
Department Charges
On February 2, Nokes advised Hendrickson and
Fascia that they were terminated because Howard did
not want them in the cabinet shop anymore.7 As a con-
sequence, both men filed grievances with the Union over
their discharges, and on February 6, Fascia also filed a
complaint with the Seattle Human Rights Department,
herein called HRD, alleging that he was discharged "be-
cause of national origin and age" in violation of a Seattle
ordinance. The HRD complaint recites that Nokes told
Fascia he was being "laid-off' because Howard "said I
was not a good worker and that I was talking too much
on the job, that I was too slow and not producing
enough for the company." Fascia's complaint was served
on the Respondent on February 13. On March 2, the
grievance concerning the February 2 discharges of Hen-
drickson and Fascia was heard by an arbitrator, who
issued his "Expedited Arbitration Decision and Award"
on March 7, finding, in essence, that while the grievants
were "not without fault or responsibility," their behavior
was not such as to justify discharge without prior warn-
ing or counseling, and consequently their discharge was
"not for just cause and thus was improper under the
terms of the [Collective Bargaining] Agreement." The
decision provided for reinstatement and backpay, and
concluded with the following statement: "This reinstate-
ment is not intended to affect the status of either Griev-
ant with respect to eligibility for layoff, including the
layoff of four employees as of March 2, 1979. In other
words, if either Grievant would in fact have been prop-
erly laid off as of March 2, 1979, but for the discharge of
February 2, 1979, then this reinstatement does not pre-
vent or prohibit such layoff as of March 2, 1979, or
thereafter."
On March 7, apparently unaware that the arbitrator's
decision was to issue that day, Hendrickson also filed a
complaint with the HRD claiming he was discharged for
opposing the "discriminatory work environment which
existed toward Felice Angelo Fascia on at least three (3)
different occasions." The complaint goes on to allege
s Howard testified racial slurs were made jokingly and that Fascia had
referred to himself in the same manner.
5 Howard, who later received medical treatment for the problem. has
since undergone supervisory training at a university in the Seattle area.
I Based on the credited testimony of Hendrickson and Fascia
1025
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had not received any written warnings or criti-
cism of his work prior to his discharge, although a co-
worker was not discharged after receiving a written
warning. It states further that on January 24, Howard
had told Hendrickson that his performance was good,
that there was plenty of work, and no one was going to
be laid off; also, that, Howard, he had complained to
management about derogatory statements directed
toward Fascia and other minorities.
Hendrickson learned the results of the arbitration on
March 9, and at the Union's direction, he and Fascia re-
turned to work on Monday, March 12, and were paid a
few days later for the wages they had lost.
On March 13, Nokes spoke to Hendrickson about
withdrawing the HRD charge. Hendrickson's version of
the conversation was as follows:
Louis asked me what I was going to do about the
Human Rights thing, and I said what do you mean.
He said why don't you just drop it. We gave you
your job back with back pay, what more do you
want. And I said you didn't give me anything. I
was awarded through arbitration, and I want to
know what assurances you can give me that this
sort of thing won't happen again.
Louis said what difference does it make, you are
back to work now. Why don't you just drop it. I'll
tell you right now that if you don't drop it I will
make it so miserable for you around here you will
wish you had dropped it.
And I told him that not to threaten me like that.
There was no reason to talk to me like that, and
that as far as I was concerned nothing could be
done until Leon got back from vacation.8
Nokes also spoke to Fascia about withdrawing the
HRD charge. Nokes admitted talking to both men about
the HRD charges, but thought he had talked to Fascia
first. He testified that he told Hendrickson that if the
HRD charge was not withdrawn, "that our jobs would
be, I think I used the word 'miserable' around there and
I felt that with something like this hanging over our
heads that there is no way that we could get our work
program back on an even keel where we could concen-
trate on the things at hand, our work, that is what we
are basically there for and we got a little perturbed at
each other, so I just decided that I had better just leave
well enough alone and get away while I was not saying
too much more."
Later that day, Nokes asked Union Shop Steward Jim
Glass to speak to both men in an effort to get them to
withdraw the HRD charges. By so doing, Nokes made
Glass the Respondent's agent. Glass apparently was
under the impression that Hendrickson and Fascia were
seeking money through the HRD. According to both
men, they denied they were after any money, but wanted
protection which they had not been able to get from the
Union. Hendrickson asked Glass why he was talking to
them as a shop steward on behalf of management, and
was told that Nokes had told him to talk to the two men,
that he, Glass, had his own job to worry about, "and
' Leon McCoy was away on vacation from March 2 until March 21
that he had to take into account what Louis [Nokes]
wanted done." Nokes admitted he asked Glass to speak
to both men about withdrawing the HRD charges be-
cause Glass was the shop steward.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is found that
Nokes solicited the withdrawal of the HRD charges and
threatened the job security of Hendrickson if he did not
withdraw the charge, as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the
complaint;9 and that Nokes directed Union Shop Ste-
ward Glass to intervene with Hendrickson and Fascia to
obtain withdrawal of the HRD charges, as alleged in
paragraph 8(b) of the complaint. It is implicit that such
conduct tends to and does interfere with, restrain, and
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.' °
C. Wages Are Withheld
Paragraph 6(a) alleges that on or about March 21, the
Respondent withheld and has refused to pay Hendrick-
son and Fascia wages for the period of March 5-12, to
which they were entitled pursuant to the arbitration
award, in retaliation for filing their grievances and
charges with the HRD.
It is clear from the evidence that both Hendrickson
and Fascia were paid on or about March 16 for the 5
weeks pay they had lost following their February 2 ter-
minations, in accordance with the arbitrator's award.
On or about March 13, Hendrickson informed HRD
Legal Investigator Wear that Nokes had tried to get him
to drop the HRD complaint under threat of making
work there "miserable" if he did not. The following day,
Wear cautioned Mick McCoy that the agency could con-
ceive comments like that as retaliatory.
Leon McCoy, who had left for vacation on March 3,
the day after the arbitration hearing, returned on March
21. After reading the arbitrator's decision on March 22,
he decided he would consider that both Hendrickson and
Fascia would have been laid off on March 2, and thereby
recover a week's pay from each of them. Consequently,
a week's pay was deducted from both men's paycheck
for the week of March 19 through 23. In the meantime,
by letter dated March 16, Respondent informed the State
of Washington Employment Security Department that
both Hendrickson and Fascia had been paid for 200
hours each for the 5 weeks work they had lost, in accor-
dance with the arbitrator's award. Also on March 22, in
the morning, HRD Investigator Wear presented Leon
McCoy with pre-determination settlement agreements in
both HRD cases, which he declined to sign, stating that
he wanted to contact his attorney. "
Respondent's claim that Hendrickson and Fascia
would have been laid off on March 2, is, in my view, an
afterthought and made for the sole purpose of recovering
9 The preponderance of the evidence does not show, however, that
Nokes threatened the job security of Fascia
"' Respondent admits, and it is clear, that Nokes was a supervisor. Ac-
cordingly. it is no defense for the Respondent to claim he was acting on
his own and without authority.
I An investigatory conference with HRD Investigator Wear was held
on May 8. and in August, the Respondent executed a pre-determination
settlement covering Fascia's complaint.
1026
() BH II.I.IAMS COMP'ANY1
a week's wages from each in retaliation for their filing
the union grievance and HRD charges. In this regard,
Leon McCoy, who on March 22 decided that Hendrick-
son and Fascia would have been laid off on March 2, did
not participate in the March 2 decision, which was made
by Nokes after consultation with Howard. Furthermore,
Nokes testified that he told Leon on March 22 that while
he thought Hendrickson would have been laid off on
March 2, Fascia would not have been. Nevertheless
Leon made the decision to deduct a week's pay from
each. As noted above Nokes testified that he and
Howard decided they could get along without the indi-
viduals actually laid off on March 2 and still maintain the
output, and that the people selected were "secondary
help or apprentices." It was initially contended by the
Respondent that four employees were laid off on that
date: Larry DeShaw, a journeyman working in the door
department and who was later rehired in the cabinet de-
partment; Ralph Hendrix, a first period apprentice in the
cabinet department; 2 Michael Inouye, a fourth period
apprentice in the cabinet department; and Kenneth
Goans, a student who did part-time cleanup for the
entire plant in the afternoons. ' Hendrickson testified,
without contradiction, that when he went back to work
on March 12, Inouye was still working. He also claimed
that Inouye quit his employment as opposed to being laid
off as the Respondent initially claimed. Questioned by
the General Counsel about Inouye, Nokes admitted that
Inouye had given notice of his intention to quit prior to
layoff. Thus, it is seen that only one cabinet department
employee was laid off on March 2, first period appren-
tice Hendrix, whom Nokes characterized as not having
worked out well. It is clear from Nokes' testimony that
Fascia would not have been laid off on March 2. The
Respondent would have me assume, apparently, that
Hendrickson, a seventh period apprentice, would have
been put in the cabinet department in place of Hendrix, a
first period apprentice whom Nokes admitted was not
the caliber of employee that the Respondent desired to
retain. In light of all the evidence, I reject the Respon-
dent's contention that either Hendrickson or Fascia
would have been laid off on March 2, and find that with-
holding I week's wages from each for the period March
5-12, to which they were entitled pursuant to the arbitra-
tion award, was in retaliation for filing their grievances
with the Union and HRD charges, as alleged in para-
graph 6 of the complaint.
D. The March 30 Layoff
Hendrickson was one of seven employees purportedly
laid off on March 30. Those "laid off" are listed on the
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 8(b), and include: John
Barker, a journeyman who worked part-time in the
frame department and whom the Respondent transferred
to another employer on a "loan" basis; Paul Oppermen, a
fourth period apprentice in the frame department who
had already advised the Respondent he was going to
2 Aprenticeship covers 4 years and is operated on a semester basis
Thus, a first period apprentice is in his first semester of apprenticeship,
and a seventh period apprentice is in his sevenih semester of apprentice.
ship During March, Hendrickson was a seventh period apprenice
s3 Goans was recalled within a few days
quit; Renee Briggs, a third period apprentice who was
rehired in May; Gene Raybould, a journeyman in the
cabinet department, who had given notice he wes quit-
ting: Kenneth Goans, the part-time cleanup boy who had
been laid off March 2 and rehired shortly thereafter, and
who had also given notice that he was quitting; Richard
Olson, a journeyman cabinetmaker, who had received a
written warning in the fall of 1978, and who, like Barker,
was "loaned" to another employer; and Hendrickson. It
is significant that Fascia was also told by Nokes that
there was to be a big layoff, and that he was to be
"loaned" to another employer. However, when Fascia
protested, he was neither laid off nor "loaned" out but
was told instead that there was plenty of work for him
to do. ' 4 The General Counsel's Exhibit 8(c), a list of 10
workers left in the cabinet shop after the March 30
layoff, was prepared by the Respondent and lists but two
apprentices, Mark Delisle, a fifth period apprentice, and
Eugene Hardin, a seventh period apprentice. Another
man, Richard Esteb, which the Respondent character-
ized as a journeyman, was erroneously left off the list.
While Davis, Wanichek, Esteb, and Hendrickson had
been in the same apprenticeship category, it is noted that
the General Counsel's Exhibit 8(b), prepared by the Re-
spondent, lists Hendrickson as a seventh period appren-
tice, and the General Counsel Exhibit 8(c) lists Davis
and Wanichek as journeymen, and Nokes testified Esteb
was a journeyman. Whether the different categories of
apprentice-journeyman listings were deliberately made
for the purpose of creating the impression that Hendrick-
son was less senior than the others, is not clear. It is
clear, however, that contrary to Nokes' representation to
Hendrickson that he would be recalled in a few weeks,
he was not recalled, and the Respondent thereafter hired
two journeymen and two new apprentices in the cabinet
shop, and also recalled third period apprentice Briggs. In
any event, when asked on direct examination by the
General Counsel what factors the Respondent took into
consideration in making the decision to layoff Hendrick-
son in place of Delisle, Hardin, and others with the same
seniority, Nokes testified:
A. Well, we felt that the disruption and behavior
of Mr. Hendrickson was not exactly what we
wanted in our company for the jobs that we needed
to get done. There was too much conversation
going on, his work is, oh, I would say average, I
don't think it is exceptional on his abilities, certainly
not the worst, but I think basically the attitudes and
the disruptions and the ability to get the job done
with this going on are basically what I think is the
reason that we let him go.
Q. You are talking about his persistence on the
Human Rights Commission charge?
A. True.
Q. Did you discuss that choice with Mr.
Howard?
A. Yes.
" Nokes testified al one point hat Fascia was a loa worker, at an-
other point that the quality of his work was good and hat he was salis-
fied with the work he did: and at another point he acknowledged that
Fascia received premium pay
1027
DECISIONS OF NAII()NA. L.AH()R REI.AIIONS BO()ARI)
Q. I think you said before that you did discuss it
with Mr. McCoy as well.
A. Yes; I did.
Hendrickson testified, without contradiction, that fol-
lowing the layoff Nokes told him the layoffs would last
for only a few weeks. He also told Hendrickson that
Leon McCoy did not want the HRD people telling him
how to run his business. On another occasion, Nokes al-
luded to the fact that Hendrickson had brought in the
"Feds." Hendrickson testified, without contradiction,
that Howard told him that as far as Howard was con-
cerned, Hendrickson could return at any time; that the
only thing preventing it was that Leon McCoy did not
want the HRD people telling him how to run his busi-
ness.
Upon the foregoing, it is clear, and I conclude, that
the March 30 layoff of Hendrickson was in further retali-
ation for the grievance and HRD charge which he filed,
as alleged in paragraph 6 of the complaint and that such
conduct violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
E. Nokes Interference in Union Affairs
Nokes was first employed by the Respondent in 1947,
and has been the superintendent since at least 1952.
While Leon McCoy has been the president and general
manager for the past 15 years, Nokes is in overall charge
of the entire plant, including department foremen and
leadmen, and exercises supervisory authority over the 30
to 40 employees. Nokes has been a member of the Union
since 1941, and one of three elected trustees for "possibly
6 or 8 years." Evanger, a "detailer" employed by the Re-
spondent, is also a trustee. Nokes is also a member of the
Union's executive board. He testified that the trustees
"sign documents of death certificates, we audit the books
every quarter and . . . that is about it." The executive
board and general membership each meet once a month,
and he attends both meetings. Asked what the executive
board did, Nokes testified, ". . . we discuss the problems
or whatever that is brought into the union and make
some decisions that are to be brought into the general
meeting .... There is always problems in the union."
The executive board discusses the "general business of
the union," and he votes on issues that are brought up.
He also attends and participates in the general member-
ship meetings, including voting for election of officers
and ratification of contracts. While at least one executive
board member is on the negotiating committee, Nokes is
not. In the most recent negotiations involving the Union
and the Respondent, "union leadership" recommended
ratification. The danger inherent in supervisory participa-
tion in union affairs is obvious when it is realized that
Nokes, a high-level supervisor and also a union trustee
and member of its executive board, directed the union
steward to intercede with Hendrickson and Fascia on
behalf of management to obtain withdrawal of the HRD
charges.'5 Nokes, by virtue of his authority as a high-
level supervisor and union official, was able to cause the
shop steward to switch his allegiance from the employ-
Is It is axiomatic that a shop steward's duties require first allegiance to
the union membership he represents
ees to the Respondent. By permitting Nokes to hold
union offices, and by Nokes direction of the union ste-
ward to intercede on behalf of the Respondent, the Re-
spondent has interfered in the administration of the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act as al-
leged in paragraph 7 of the complaint. See, for example,
Schwenk Incorporated, 229 NLRB 640 (1977).
CONC.USIONS or LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By soliciting the withdrawal of charges filed with
the Seattle Human Rights Department, and by threaten-
ing the job security of employees if they did not with-
draw those charges, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By directing the Union's shop steward to intervene
with employees for the purpose of obtaining the with-
drawal of charges filed with the of Seattle Human Rights
Department, the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and thereby vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By withholding wages due employees pursuant to
an arbitration award in retaliation for filing grievances
with the Union and/or charges with the Seattle Human
Rights Department, the Respondent has discriminated
against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
6. By laying off an employee, and declining to reem-
ploy him in retaliation for filing a grievance with the
Union and/or a charge with the Seattle Human Rights
Department, the Respondent has discriminated against an
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
7. By permitting Louis Nokes, its high-level supervisor
and agent to attend union meetings and vote in secret
elections and to serve as a union trustee and member of
the Union's executive board, and by permitting Nokes to
order the union shop steward to act on the Respondent's
behalf to obtain withdrawal of charges filed by employ-
ees with the Seattle Human Rights Depertment, the Re-
spondent has interfered with the administration of a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices effecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully laid off
Peter Hendrickson on March 30, 1979, I shall recom-
mend that the Respondent be required to offer him im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if
1028
O. B. WILLIAMS COMPANY
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason
of such discrimination, by payment of a sum equal to
that which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his layoff on March 30, 1979, to the
date of said offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during such period, together with interest thereon. It is
also recommended that the Respondent be required to
pay Peter Hendrickson the week's wages for the period
of March 5-12, 1979, to which he was entitled pursuant
to the arbitration award, together with interest thereon.
It is also recommended that the Respondent be required
to pay Felice Fascia interest on the week's wages for the
period of March 5-12, 1979, to which he was entitled
pursuant to said arbitration award, until the date said
week's wages were in fact paid to him. Backpay shall be
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest thereon as set forth in Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 1
Having found Louis Nokes to be a high-ranking super-
visor and agent of the Respondent and a high-ranking of-
ficial of the Union, I shall recommend that the Respon-
dent, by Nokes and any other of its supervisors, cease in-
terfering in the administration of the Union by permitting
high-ranking supervisors to serve as high union officials.
It is also recommended that the Respondent make
available to the Board, upon request, all payroll and
other records to facilitate checking the amount of back-
pay and interest due.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER 7
The Respondent, O. B. Williams Company, Seattle,
Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Soliciting employees to withdraw charges which
they have filed with the City of Seattle Human Rights
Department, and threatening their job security if they do
not withdraw said charges.
(b) Directing the Union's shop steward to intervene
with employees for the purpose of obtaining the with-
drawal of charges filed with the Seattle Human Rights
Department.
(c) Withholding wages due employees pursuant to an
arbitration award, in retaliation for filing grievances with
the Union and/or charges with the Seattle Human
Rights Department.
16 See, generally, lir Plumbing d Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
17 In the event no exceplions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National lIabor Relations Hoard, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided
in Sec. 10248 of the Rules and Regulation, hbe adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions. and Order, and all ohbjectilons thereto
shall be deemed 'aisved fr all purposes
(d) Laying off employees, and declining to reemploy
them in retaliation for filing grievances with the Union
and/or a charge with the Seattle Human Rights Depart-
ment.
(e) Interfering with the administration of Millmen's
Union Local 383, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, by permitting its high-
level supervisor, Louis Nokes, or any other high-level
supervisor, to attend union meetings, to vote in union
elections, or to hold high union offices, including the of-
fices of trustee and member of executive board, and by
permitting its agents and supervisors to order the Union's
shop steward to act on the Respondent's behalf to obtain
the withdrawal of charges filed with the Seattle Human
Rights Department.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights protected under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer Peter Hendrickson immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or a substantially equivalent job,
without prejudice to his seniority, or other rights previ-
ously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of his unlawful layoff, in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Pay to Peter Hendrickson the week's wages award-
ed him in an arbitration award and unlawfully withheld
in retaliation for filing a grievance with the Union, and/
or charges with the Seattle Human Rights Department,
together with interest.
(c) Pay to Felice Fascia interest on the week's wages
awarded him in an arbitration award and unlawfully
withheld in retaliation for filing a grievance with the
Union, and/or charges with the Seattle Human Rights
Department, until the date said week's wages were paid
to him.
(d) Notify and require Louis Nokes that while he is
employed by the Respondent as superintendent, he shall
not attend meetings, vote in elections, or hold elective
offices in Millmen's Union Local 383, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO.
(e) Post at it place of business in Seattle, Washington,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by an au-
thorized representative of the Respondent, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all 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.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
tUniled States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
Order of the National L.abor Relatilons Board"
1029