Operating Engineers Local 382 (Bechtel Constructors)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 1248 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1248
308 NLRB No. 182
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
The Respondent also excepted to the judge’s finding that it was
motivated to lay off Jimmy Ferguson because he was a traveler. The
Respondent contends that Ferguson became a member of the Re-
spondent in October 1990 and therefore was not a traveler at the
time of the layoff. Although the record reflects that Ferguson did be-
come a member of the Respondent in October 1990, this has no
bearing on the judge’s reasoning that, in effect, the Respondent was
treating Ferguson as a traveler.
1 All dates are in 1991, unless otherwise indicated.
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL–
CIO, Local 382 (Bechtel Constructors Corpora-
tion) and Jimmy Ferguson. Case 26–CB–2808
September 30, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On April 29, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Bruce
C. Nasdor issued the attached decision. The Respond-
ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modi-
fied.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL–CIO,
Local 382, Little Rock, Arkansas, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the Order as modified.
Insert the following as paragraph 2(d) and reletter
the subsequent paragraph.
‘‘(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director suffi-
cient copies of the notice for posting by Bechtel Con-
struction Corp., if willing, at all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted.’’
Bruce E. Buchanan, Esq., for the General Counsel.
W. E. Wright, Representative and Andrew Clements, Presi-
dent and Business Manager for the Respondent Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE C. NASDOR, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried at Little Rock, Arkansas, on August 19 and 20,
1991.1 The original charge in this proceeding was filed by
Ferguson on April 3, 1991, and a first amended charge was
filed on May 10, 1991. A complaint and notice of hearing
issued on May 10.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent Union caused
or attempted to cause Bechtel, to lay off Jimmy Ferguson on
February 19, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. The
complaint further alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by restraining and coercing Ferguson
on February 20, and by threatening to invoke a union bylaw
to engage in said restraint and coercion.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of coun-
sel for the General Counsel’s brief, and Respondent’s letter,
I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Bechtel Constructors Corporation, with a office and place
of business in Russellville, Arkansas, has been engaged in
the maintenance of powerplants.
During the preceding 12 months, Bechtel, in the course
and conduct of its business operations performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of
Arkansas.
During the preceding 12 months, Bechtel purchased and
received at its facility, products, goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State
of Arkansas. Bechtel is now, and has been at all times mate-
rial, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent Union is now, and has been at all times
material, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. FACTS
The Union is located in Little Rock, Arkansas, with its
president and business manager, Andrew Clements. Bill
Wright is a business representative and Ellen Wilson is the
union secretary and dispatcher. Bill Williams was the busi-
ness manager for approximately 33 years, when he retired in
1986, and presently holds the title of business manager emer-
itus.
The Union operates a hiring hall where it refers operating
engineers to various employers. Wilson is the individual who
performs the function of dispatching the operating engineers
and refers individuals based upon an out-of-work list which
is kept on index cards.
The Charging Party, Jimmy Ferguson, is a crane operator
and has been for approximately 18 years. He joined the
International Union of Operating Engineers in Fort Worth,
Texas, in January 1982. He was a member at that time of
Local 819. In December 1989, Ferguson moved to Arkansas,
1249OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 382 (BECHTEL CONSTRUCTORS)
and went to Respondent’s union hall placing his name on the
out-of-work list. He continued to be a member of Local 819
and as such, Clements considered him a traveler because he
was a member of another local, although seeking work
through Respondent.
In early 1990, Bechtel entered into an agreement, called
General Presidents Project Maintenance Agreement, with Re-
spondent and with other unions. Pursuant to the terms of the
agreement, the Respondent Union is the sole and exclusive
source for referring operating engineers to be employed by
Bechtel at the Arkansas Nuclear One facility, in Russellville,
Arkansas. Pursuant to the agreement the Union began to
refer individuals to Bechtel on January 28, 1990. At that
time, Phillip Henderson reported to Bechtel, and on the fol-
lowing day, Paul Cooper reported in and both of these men
became foreman for Bechtel.
On September 13, 1990, Ferguson was referred and re-
ported to work for Bechtel as the eighth operating engineer
on the project. On October 1, 1990, Earl Williams and Frank
Evins were the last two operating engineers to report to work
at the Bechtel project.
On December 14, 1990, Bechtel announced that it was lay-
ing off all of the operating engineers except Henderson and
Cooper, who were foremen, but that the rank and file em-
ployees, including Ferguson, would be called back by name
in early 1991.
In late January 1991, Bechtel commenced to recall operat-
ing engineers by requesting them through the Union. Be-
tween January 16 and 24, Bechtel specifically requested by
name, employees Kirkpatrick, Hindman, Childres, Statler,
and Evins. Kirkpatrick reported to Bechtel on January 24,
Hindman on January 31, and Childres on February 7. On
January 31, Bechtel Supervisor Lou Bouger contacted Re-
spondent secretary Wilson, and requested Jimmy Ferguson
and Earl Williams be referred back to the job on February
14. Ferguson and Williams reported on February 14, along
with Statler and Evins.
A short time after February 14, Bechtel determined that
they had called back too many of the operating engineers.
Cooper testified that his superior, Bill Satko informed him
that they would have to lay off two of the operating engi-
neers and asked who they could lay off. According to Coo-
per, he responded that it didn’t matter to him and that he
would not give him any names, rather he would contact the
business agent.
On February 18 and 19, Cooper called Clements concern-
ing the layoff. According to Cooper’s testimony he informed
Clements of the need to layoff two employees and Clements
asked which two. Cooper responded that Childres was re-
questing to be laid off so Clements said, ‘‘Get Childres,’’
and then asked about the next one. Clements and Cooper
then discussed who was the last employee to arrive at the
jobsite and Cooper said he understood that it was Ferguson
and Williams, to which Clements replied that he should get
one of them. Cooper then stated it didn’t make any dif-
ference to him which one was laid off, and Clements replied
he had some, ‘‘long boom’’ work to be available and that
Ferguson was a ‘‘long boom’’ hand. This work involves the
use of cranes with booms for lifting attachments of 300 to
400 feet. Cooper testified that Clements was not really the
one who had made the decision to lay off Ferguson and he
did not remember who made this decision, that it could have
been Cooper himself.
In Cooper’s affidavit he stated, inter alia, that he was not
absolutely positive but he believed Clements told him that
Ferguson was the last one sent out and should be let go. Fur-
thermore, according to Cooper’s affidavit, Clements also
mentioned that he could use Ferguson on the long boom
work.
Clements also testified that Cooper asked who should be
laid off, to which Clements replied it was normally ‘‘the last
one up there.’’ Cooper allegedly replied that Ferguson and
Williams were the last ones, but that Childres wanted to be
laid off. Clements asked whether Williams or Ferguson was
last and Cooper replied that it was Ferguson. Clements testi-
fied further that he had gotten inquiries concerning long
boom operators so that it would not be any problem to get
Ferguson work. Clements testified that he was not positive
if it was Cooper who made the decision to layoff Ferguson.
He agreed that his affidavit was correct in which he stated
it was Cooper who did make the decision. At that point
Clements retracted his testimony concerning the long boom
work and he testified that he spoke to either Operating Engi-
neers Local 369 Business Agent J. D. Maples, or Richardson,
or he may have heard it secondhand. Moreover, according to
Clements, he did not know if the call had come from the
Memphis Local, regarding the long boom work, before Feb-
ruary 19, the date of his conversation with Cooper.
Clements’ affidavit reflects that he spoke to Maples with
respect to a need for long boom crane operators before his
conversation with Cooper. Assistant business agent with op-
erating engineers Local 369 in Memphis, Tennessee, J. D.
Maples, testified that 2 or 3 weeks prior to April 19 he con-
tacted Respondent and spoke with Wilson the dispatcher.
During this conversation, according to Maples, he requested
to use Ferguson on the MAPCO Refinery Project, and Wil-
son agreed. Maples testified he didn’t speak with Clements
at that time because Clements was not in the office.
Cooper, after his conversation with Clements, reported
back to Satko that Childres and Ferguson would be the two
men to be laid off, and his reason for stating this was be-
cause Clements had told him that they were the two individ-
uals to lay off.
On February 19, Ferguson reported to work and was told
by Earl Williams that he and Childres were going to be laid
off. Shortly thereafter, a Bechtel management individual met
with Ferguson and Childres informing them of their layoff.
Clements averred that Ferguson was the last man on the
job. This is contrary to the stipulation by the parties in which
it is stated that Ferguson reported to work on February 14,
with Williams, Statler, and Evins. Ferguson was not the last
employee requested by Bechtel because, according to the
stipulation, both Ferguson and Williams were requested on
January 31.
Clements alleged that Ferguson was the last man on the
job, and that this information was reflected on his out-of-
work card, that is the day and time of the calls to Ferguson
and Williams from the Union. After a review of the out- of-
work cards of Ferguson and Williams, Clements conceded
neither of the cards reflected the time and date of the
Union’s calls to them. Clements took the position that he
was not the dispatcher and he’s not as familiar with this pro-
cedure as is the dispatcher. Clements then stated that it was
1250 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the referral slips of Ferguson and Williams, which reflect
that Ferguson was the last man on the job. The referral slips
reflect that Williams signed his on February 11, and Fer-
guson signed the same document on February 12. Both docu-
ments reflect that each was scheduled to report on February
14 at 7:30 a.m. Clements testified that an employee may not
be referred to a jobsite without signing the referral slip. This
was revealed to be inaccurate and incorrect by the introduc-
tion of Hindman’s and Mallett’s referral slips, which neither
individual had signed.
Dispatcher Wilson testified that the referral slips are uti-
lized to verify that the individual was sent by the Union to
the jobsite, and further utilized as a dues-checkoff authoriza-
tion. She testified that the individuals must sign the referral
slip before going to the jobsite and then they are to take the
document to the site. Moreover, she testified it did not matter
when the individual signed the document, and that it did not
affect the individual’s seniority in any way but that seniority
was based upon when the individual reported to the job, rath-
er than when they signed the referral slip. Perusal of the re-
ferral slips demonstrates the accuracy of Wilson’s testimony
in that Evins signed his checkoff authorization on January 29
and reported to work on February 14, while Statler signed
his on January 31, and reported to work on February 14. In
between January 29 and February 14, Hindman and Childres
signed their checkoff authorizations and reported to work on
January 31 and February 7. Wilson testified she kept a docu-
ment for each job location of all individuals referred to the
jobsite. The document lists reporting dates rather than the
dates the individuals signed the authorizations.
Immediately after he was laid off, Ferguson went to the
union hall where he met Clements. According to Ferguson
he told Clements he had been laid off and had heard there
was some ‘‘long boom’’ work available. Clements responded
that no such work was available and Ferguson inquired,
‘‘Did you lay me off?’’ Clements stated he did not, but then
stated, ‘‘Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t, he was not say-
ing.’’ Clements did not testify with regard to this particular
conversation.
Ferguson testified that later that day he received a tele-
phone call from Bill Wright. According to Ferguson Wright
stated that he, Ferguson, had gotten a raw deal and that if
he, Wright, had been at the union hall when the layoffs were
made it would not have happened. Wright asked Ferguson to
return to the union hall the next day where they could meet
with Clements and get the matter straightened out. Wright
did not testify during the course of the hearing.
On February 20, Ferguson returned to the union hall and
spoke with Clements. Wright was not present at the hall at
that time. According to Ferguson, Clements asked what he
wanted, and Ferguson responded that he wanted his job.
Clements advised Ferguson that he was not getting his job
back and that he was only interested in what was good for
himself. Ferguson asked Clements if he had gotten laid off
and Clements replied ‘‘No, Cooper had laid him off.’’ Fer-
guson then stated he felt he had been discriminated against
from the start citing a job where he believed he should have
been called rather than Lassiter, at which point, according to
Ferguson, Clements became angry and raised his voice. Fer-
guson testified that Clements stated, ‘‘Well my God, that
man (Lassiter) is on the Executive Board.’’ Ferguson asked
what that had to do with anything and Clements stated,
‘‘You’re not going to come up here from 819 and run this
Local, and if you don’t like the deal you got here you can
go to the Labor Board.’’
During his testimony Clements made no reference to this
conversation.
Later during the week of February 19, Ferguson returned
to the union hall and requested that Wright supply him with
a copy of the constitution and bylaws. This request was in
the presence of Wilson and Clements. Later that day Fer-
guson spoke with Wright on the telephone, at which time
Wright said Clements had chewed him out and asked him
why he was giving those copies to the enemy.
Sometime between late February and April 3, the date Fer-
guson filed the charge, he had another conversation with
Wright in which Wright told him that if he did not go
through the internal remedies set forth in the Union’s bylaws,
but instead [he] went to the Labor Board, he would be fined
and the Union would seek reimbursement of expenses in-
curred in any legal proceedings. In this conversation Fer-
guson alleged that Wright specifically discussed the Union’s
bylaw which states that a member may be fined and assessed
costs, if he files an action with an administrative agency be-
fore exhausting his internal rights and remedies.
Ferguson testified with respect to several other telephone
conversations he had with Wright during April and May.
During one conversation, Wright allegedly informed him that
the legal actions before the Board would be a matter of pub-
lic record and every union hall in the United States would
have access to this information and his name would be
‘‘mud’’ across the country. In a later conversation Wright al-
legedly informed Ferguson that he could personally be sued
through the Landrum-Griffen Act for bringing charges be-
cause of his frivolous lawsuit. In May, during another con-
versation, Ferguson alleges that Wright asked him if there
was any way they could resolve the complaint. Ferguson re-
plied that if Clements would pay him backpay and apologize
he would drop the Board action. Wright responded he might
be able to get the apology, but that he was quite sure there
would be no monetary settlement, to which Ferguson re-
sponded he would not settle on that basis. Wright then told
Ferguson, according to the testimony of Ferguson, that he
(Wright) was pretty sure that he could get Ferguson a job
with good pay, benefits, and permanency with a crane rental
company which the Union hoped to sign up in Hot Springs.
Ferguson stated he could not settle on those terms either.
Ferguson testified that he called Cooper at his home on
March 20. A conversation ensued wherein Ferguson asked
Cooper why he had been laid off, and Cooper replied it was
Clements decision. Cooper told Ferguson that Clements gave
two reasons for his layoff. One was that Earl Williams was
retained because he is the brother of Bill Williams, business
manager emeritus of Respondent Union, and also that some
‘‘long boom’’ work was available for Ferguson. Cooper also
testified concerning this conversation stating he had been
honest with Ferguson concerning the reason for his layoff
and his conversation with Clements. According to Cooper, he
did not know whether he informed Ferguson that Clements
had made this decision, and he did not know whether he in-
formed Ferguson that Clements had made this decision. He
denied discussing Earl Williams, or the fact that Earl Wil-
liams was the brother of Bill Williams and that this played
a large part in getting Ferguson laid off.
1251OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 382 (BECHTEL CONSTRUCTORS)
2 The El Dorado job.
3 Counsel for the General Counsel’s motion in his brief, to correct
the typographical error in the complaint is granted.
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
The text of the taped conversation reflects that Cooper did
not want the responsibility of choosing whom to lay off.
Moreover, that Clements chose to pick Ferguson for layoff
because of the availability of the ‘‘long boom’’ work. Fur-
thermore, that Earl Williams brother, ‘‘had a whole lot to do
with Earl staying out there.’’
Conclusion and Analysis
The record amply demonstrates that the Respondent Union
engaged in a violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by caus-
ing Bechtel to lay off Ferguson. Throughout the record, a
pattern emerges that Respondent was motivated by the fact
that Ferguson was ‘‘a traveler,’’ and Clements considered
him ‘‘the enemy.’’ Furthermore, I am convinced the Fer-
guson was chosen for a layoff, while Earl Williams was re-
tained because Clements favored the brother of the business
manager emeritus, Bill Williams.
I believe beyond any doubt that Wright told Ferguson that
he (Ferguson) had gotten ‘‘a raw deal,’’ when chosen for
layoff. Moreover, the fact the Clements referred to Lassiter
as a member of Respondent’s executive board, as a basis for
referring Lassiter out2 before Ferguson, fits the pattern re-
vealing Respondent’s discriminatory motivation.
Wright offered Ferguson a permanent job with good pay
and benefits if Ferguson dropped his charges with the Board.
This more than suggests that Respondent knew exactly that
it was violating the Act.
Clements testimony that Ferguson was the last man on the
job contradicts the stipulation that states Ferguson was one
of four employees who was recalled on February 14. More-
over, Clements conceded his ignorance of the hiring hall me-
chanics, stating, in effect that this was Wilson’s (the dis-
patcher) domain.
Wilson acknowledged that the date the referral slip is
signed does not impact with the employees’ seniority on the
job. Several referral slips show this to be true, there is no
relationship between the dates signed and seniority on the
job. Therefore, if Ferguson was the last one to sign his refer-
ral slip, it is of no significance as to his seniority or who
was the last person on the job.
I found Ferguson to be an impressive witness and I fully
credit his version of the events and facts as the occurred. His
testimony was exacting, unambiguous, and scrupulous in its
detail.
In my opinion, Clements made the sole decision to have
Ferguson laid off. The availability of ‘‘long boom’’ work at
the time of Ferguson’s layoff was a fiction. I credit the testi-
mony of Maples in this regard, and discredit Clements.
In the conversation between Ferguson and Clements on
February 20, Clements referenced Ferguson’s traveler status
by stating that he was not going to come up from Local 819
and run Local 382. Furthermore, Clements’ references to
Lassiter’s executive board status and job favor referral treat-
ment reveal Respondent’s motivations. Both statements vio-
late Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
In my opinion, Respondent further violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act through the threat to invoke its bylaw.3
Ferguson’s unrefuted testimony was that Wright attempted to
use this bylaw, which states that a member may be fined and
assessed costs if he files an action with an administrative
agency before exhausting internal rights and remedies, to re-
strain and coerce Ferguson. See NLRB v. Shipbuilders, 391
U.S. 418 (1968). There is no evidence that Wright referred
to the 4-month proviso.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bechtel is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent caused Bechtel to lay off Jimmy Ferguson
on February 19, 1991, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the
Act, causing Bechtel to discriminate against an employee in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. Respondent’s references on February 20, 1991, to Fer-
guson’s traveler status and its references to favoritism in re-
ferring out union officers violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
restraint and coercion through the threat to invoke its bylaw.
6. The unfair labor practices found above, occurring in
connection with the interstate operations of Bechtel, are un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative ac-
tion necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I recommend that the Union’s hiring hall and referral pro-
cedures be available to Ferguson on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis with union members, travelers, job ap-
plicants, and registrants.
I further recommend that Ferguson be made whole for any
loss of earnings as the result of Respondent causing his lay-
off. Backpay and interest shall be computed in accordance
with current Board policy.
Other nonwage benefits and entitlements, including ac-
crued hours and seniority shall be restored to Ferguson.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL–CIO, Local 382, Little Rock, Arkansas, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Bechtel or any other
employer to lay off Jimmy Ferguson or any other employee
in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
(b) Coercing or restraining employees by suggesting trav-
eler status can affect their employment.
1252 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
(c) Telling employees that union officers receive favored
treatment for referrals or during layoffs.
(d) Using its bylaws as a threat to impede an employees’
right to access to Board processes.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make its hiring hall and referral procedures available
to Ferguson on an equal and nondiscriminatory basis with
union members, travelers, job applicants, and registrants.
(b) Make Ferguson whole for any loss of earnings as a re-
sult of Respondent causing his layoff. Backpay and interest
to be computed in accordance with current Board policy.
Other nonwage benefits and entitlements, including what
should have been his accrued hours and seniority shall be re-
stored to Ferguson.
(c) Post at its business office, union hall, and all places
where it customarily posts notices to members copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’5 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Bechtel or any
other employer to layoff Jimmy Ferguson or any other em-
ployee because they are travelers or because they do not hold
any position as union officers.
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain employees by suggesting
their traveler status can affect their employment.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that union officers received
favored treatment for referrals or during layoffs.
WE WILL NOT use our bylaws as a threat to impede em-
ployees’ right to access to National Labor Relations Board
processes.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or co-
erce members the exercise of their rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make our hiring hall and referral procedures
available to Ferguson on and equal an nondiscriminatory
basis with union members, travelers, job applicants, and reg-
istrants.
WE WILL make Ferguson whole for any loss of earnings
as a result of our causing his layoff. WE WILL pay him back-
pay and interest which we will compute in accordance with
current Board policy. WE WILL restore to Ferguson other
nonwage benefits and entitlements, including what should
have been his accrued hours and seniority.
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 382 (BECHTEL
CONSTRUCTORS)