Operating Engineers Local 478 (Stone & Webster)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1984

271 N.L.R.B. 1382 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Operating Engineers Local 478, International Union
of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation) and Ralph J.
Gigliotti. Case 39-CB-391
31 August 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
On 18 January 1984 Administrative Law Judge
James F. Morton issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to
the Respondent's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Operating
Engineers Local 478, International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Hamden, Connecticut,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in the Order.
The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), erifd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
2 As noted by the judge, the Board has long held that, when a union
causes the discharge of an employee or prevents him from being hired,
there is a rebuttable presumption that the union acted unlawfully because
by such conduct a union demonstrates its power to affect the employees'
livelihood in so dramatic a way as to encourage union membership
among the employees. Boilermakers Local 40 (Envirotech Corp.), 266
NLRB 432 (1983). Thus, to establish his prima facie case, the General
Counsel here needed only to show' that the Respondent caused the discri-
minatee, Ralph J Gigliotti, to be removed from his higher paying posi-
tion of diesel pump operator and transferred to the maintenance operator
position, resulting in a substantial decrease in earnings. This he did. The
judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent failed to rebut the Gen-
eral Counsel's prima facie case and that, in fact, the evidence indicates
that the Respondent's unlawful conduct was motivated by Giglioti's op-
position to the reelection of Elwood Metz Jr. as the Respondent's busi-
ness manager.
DECISION
STATEMEN r OI: THE CASE
JAMES F. MORTON, Administrative Law Judge. On
March 18, 1983, the General Counsel of the National
271 NLRB No. 215
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against Oper-
ating Engineers Local 478, International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Respondent) alleging that it
had violated Section 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act). In particular, the complaint alleges
that Respondent had, on August 31, 1982, attempted to
cause Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (S &
W) to discharge the Charging Party, Ralph J. Gigliotti,
and that it did succeed in causing S & W to transfer Gig-
liotti to a job with less overtime and consequently lower
pay; Respondent is alleged to have engaged in those ac-
tivities because Gigliotti had opposed the reelection of
Respondent's business manager, Elwood (L. Sonny)
Metz, Jr. Respondent filed an answer denying the al-
leged unlawful acts.
The hearing was held before me in Hartford, Con-
necticut, on September 12 and 13, 1983.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and by Respond-
ent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The pleadings establish, and I thus find, that S & W, a
Massachusetts corporation, is a general contractor in the
building and construction industry. Its operations meet
the Board's jurisdictional standard for nonretail concerns.
II. RESPONDENT'S STATUS
The pleadings also establish, and I therefore find, that
Respondent is a labor organization as defined in Section
2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTIC ES
A. Background
S & W has been the general contractor responsible for
the construction of a nuclear power station, known as
Millstone Unit III, being built in Waterford, Connecticut.
Construction began in the third quarter of 1974 and is
scheduled to be completed in May 1986. Employment on
that project reached a peak in November 1982 of about
3600 employees. Of that number, about 185 were repre-
sented by Respondent, 110 of those were operating engi-
neers, and the remaining 75 were surveyors. In the late
summer of 1982, the time period of the alleged violations
in the instant case, Respondent represented about 130
employees on that construction site. The alleged unlaw-
ful acts of Respondent pertained to S & W's transfer of
Ralph Gigliotti from operating a backup diesel pump to
work as a maintenance mechanic on September 1, 1982.
To put that matter in perspective, it will be helpful to
review briefly how Gigliotti was originally assigned to
the diesel pump. In 1979, S & W installed what it termed
a well point system inside a cofferdam at Millstone Unit
III. By doing so, S & W ensured that any excess water,
which might leak into that dam, would be collected in
seven individual wells and then would be pumped out
into the ocean. S & W assigned four employees per shift
1382
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 478 (STONE & WEBSTER)
to the pumps used in that operation. Each shift lasted 6
hours. The pumps were manned on a 24-hour day, 7-day-
a-week basis. On August 9, 1981, the well point system
was discontinued by S & W. The employees who had
worked on that system were all laid off. An electrically
powered pump was installed in place of the well point
system. S & W also devised a floating diesel pump which
could be started by an operating engineer should the
electrically powered pump not function during a power
outage or the like. About mid-August 1981, S & W as-
signed operating engineer Liberato (Hank) Della Vec-
chia to service the backup diesel pump. He began work
the second shift at 4:30 p.m. and worked until 2:30 a.m.
the following day, 7 days a week. Della Vecchia retired
in September 1981. The Charging Party in the instant
case, Ralph Gigliotti, was then assigned by S & W's
master mechanic, Carl Mattocks, to take over the job
from Della Vecchia. Gigliotti continued to work as the
operator of that diesel pump on a 10-hour day, 7-day-a-
week basis until he was relieved of that assignment on
August 31, 1982, under the circumstances discussed in
detail below.
B. Giglioti's Union Activities
Gigliotti has been a member of Respondent for 14
years. For 8 years prior to an election of Respondent's
officers held in 1983, he had been sergeant-at-arms,
having always run on an unopposed slate of candidates
headed by Respondent's business manager, Sonny Metz.
Notwithstanding his position as Respondent's sergeant-
at-arms and the lucrative job assignment he had at the
Millstone Unit III project, Gigliotti prepared and distrib-
uted an anonymous letter in December 1981. That letter
contained criticisms of Respondent's Business Manager
Metz for alleged misuse of funds and for allegedly en-
gaging in nepotism. The letter contained other com-
plaints regarding Metz' management of Respondent's af-
fairs. That anonymous letter was discussed at a member-
ship meeting held by Respondent in 1981. Metz read the
letter at that meeting, made unsavory remarks as to its
anonymous character, and proclaimed that he wanted the
author of that letter to run against him in the next elec-
tion.
In June 1982, Gigliotti and another member of Re-
spondent, master mechanic Carl Mattocks, discussed be-
tween themselves the advisability of forming a slate of
candidates to oppose Metz at the next union election. In
the ensuing months, July and early August, they dis-
cussed that matter with one of Respondent's agents,
James McParland, and offered to finance his candidacy.
They abandoned their interest in McParland when he in-
dicated that, if he were to run to oppose Metz, he would
not displace any of Respondent's business agents.
According to Gigliotti, he telephoned another of Re-
spondent's business agents, Frank Luciani, in August
1982 and asked if he would oppose Metz in the next elec-
tion. Gigliotti gave the following account of the discus-
sion that ensued. Luciani said that Metz had learned
from an ex-FBI agent named Walter Smith that it was
Gigliotti who had written the anonymous letter criticiz-
ing Metz which was distributed at the last Christmas
party. Luciani told Gigliotti, in somewhat indelicate
terms, that Metz was out to get him, Gigliotti. Luciani
then related that a cartoon was being drawn up at the
union office which depicted Gigliotti and Mattocks as
"the gruesome twosome" and which designated Mat-
tocks as "the banker."
Luciani testified for Respondent that Gigliotti asked
him in December 1982, not in August, to run against
Metz.
I credit Gigliotti's account, as it was detailed, as a car-
toon later appeared as described by Luciani in that dis-
cussion and as Luciani, in his testimony, acknowledged
that he did discuss that cartoon with Gigliotti but was
overall uncertain as to when that discussion took place.
Carl Mattocks testified for the General Counsel that
Luciani telephoned him in August 1982 and after making
a reference to the cartoon described above, told Mat-
tocks, "Sonny says we are running one slate down here."
Luciani testified but did not refer to Mattocks' account
of their discussion in August. Luciani acknowledged that
one of his functions as business representative is to make
telephone calls at Metz' behest. I credit Mattocks' ac-
count.
C. The Events of August 31
Mattocks also testified for the General Counsel that he
received a telephone call about 9 a.m. on August 31,
1982, from Luciani. According to Mattocks, Luciani told
him that "Sonny wants to talk to you." At that point, ac-
cording to Mattocks, Metz got on the phone and told
him that he, Mattocks, has "a guy up on that job-Gig-
liotti-that is making more money than you or me."
Mattocks testified that Metz told him to report to the
union hall on the following morning. About 11:30 a.m.
on August 31, according to Mattocks, Luciani called
again and told him that "[Respondent] does not recog-
nize you as the master mechanic on the job and that you
can cancel that appointment for tomorrow." Mattocks
further testified that later that day he was informed by
his supervisor, David Hovey, that S & W had received a
telegram from Respondent stating that it did not recog-
nize Mattocks as master mechanic and that it referred to
alleged "improprieties." Hovey then directed Mattocks
to reassign Gigliotti from his job as pump operator of the
standby diesel pump. Mattocks thereupon removed Gig-
liotti from the diesel pump assignment and placed him in
the position as a maintenance operator. In that position,
Gigliotti earned $2 an hour more than he had earned as a
pump operator but, because he worked considerably
fewer hours per week, his overall earnings were appre-
ciably less than they had been when he was the operator
of the diesel pump.
The accounts of Hovey, Metz, and Luciani corrobo-
rate much of the foregoing testimony of Mattocks. Thus,
while Luciani does not specifically recall his telephoning
Mattocks on August 31, Luciani did testify that it is part
of his job function to place calls for Respondent's busi-
ness manager, Metz. Similarly, Metz testified that he
spoke with Mattocks in late August. Hovey testified that
he received a call on August 31 from Metz in which
Metz told him that "a pump man is working excessive
1383
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours." Hovey stated that Metz characterized that as
"possibly a contractual violation."
Luciani, in testifying for Respondent, did not deny
that he telephoned Mattocks on August 31. On cross-ex-
amination, Luciani acknowledged that Metz had told
him to place a phone call to Mattocks and he did so. He
testified further that he did not recall telling Mattocks
later that day in a telephone conversation that he was no
longer recognized as the master mechanic on that job but
conceded that his memory could be faulty.
Metz testified that he had telephoned Mattocks at the
end of August 1982 and that, about that time, he also had
told Hovey that there was a pump man on the job who
was working excessive hours and that "there was a con-
tract violation." Metz testified that a typewritten log pre-
pared by his secretary summarizes relevant events that
took place on August 31. That log discloses that he tele-
phoned the president of S & W at his office in Boston,
Massachusetts, but does not disclose the contents of that
telephone conversation. Metz' testimony at the hearing
essentially was that he had no clear recollection of the
substance of that discussion.
The log further discloses that, on August 31, Metz sent
a telegram to S & W's president and to its resident man-
ager at Millstone Unit III and that a copy of the tele-
gram was sent to master mechanic Carl Mattocks. The
telegram read as follows:
Local 478 does not recognize as of this date Carl
Mattocks as the master mechanic at the Millstone
Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 3 Waterford, Con-
necticut. There is an investigation taking place into
violations of our contractual agreement between
Stone and Webster and Local Union 478 operating
engineers. We have reason to believe that individ-
uals entered into agreements that personally have
benefited themselves which is a violation of the
agreement that Stone and Webster has with Local
Union 478.
Metz in his testimony stated that he assumed that Gig-
liotti was one of the individuals referred to in that tele-
gram who entered into agreements which personally
benefited themselves.
Metz further testified that he does not normally get in-
volved in matters involving alleged contractual viola-
tions as those matters are routinely handled by business
agents assigned to the particular jobsites. He explained
that he took the action reflected above on August 31,
based on information given by his secretary, as discussed
next. According to Metz, he had asked his secretary to
schedule a meeting of Respondent's executive board. He
testified further that his secretary, on some indefinite
date, informed him that she had endeavored to reach
Gigliotti to give him that message so that he could
attend as the sergeant-at-arms and that Gigliotti could
not attend because of his working hours. Metz' testimony
was that this report by his secretary made him realize
that S & W had violated its contract and that prompted
him to (a) place a telephone call to the president of S &
W at his Boston, Massachusetts office, (b) call Mattocks
and Hovey, and (c) send out the telegram set out above.
Metz denied that he knew then that Gigliotti or Mat-
tocks had been interested in fielding a slate of candidates
to oppose him for reelection as business manager.
The log prepared by Metz' secretary contains no nota-
tion that she had tried to reach Gigliotti with respect to
informing him of an executive board meeting or that she
reported to Metz that Gigliotti could not attend because
of his work hours. Respondent did not call Metz' secre-
tary to corroborate Metz' account.
D. Subsequent Events
On September 1, 1982, Metz prepared and sent to the
president of S & W a registered letter which stated that
it had been brought to Metz' attention on the preceding
day that a special shift had been in operation for approxi-
mately the previous 3 months without the knowledge or
consent of Respondent. The reference was to the hours
that Gigliotti had worked. The letter noted that that shift
violated article I, section 4 of Respondent's contract
with S & W. That section provides that S & W agrees
not to enter into any individual contracts with its em-
ployees. Metz in his letter characterized that shift as a
"flagrant violation of our contract." He also stated there-
in that he "will never understand how an individual
could ever make an agreement to further his own finan-
cial gain" in light of the lack of work among Respond-
ent's members.
S & W did not hire any replacement for Gigliotti to
operate the standby diesel pump but, as noted above, as-
signed those duties to another operating engineer on the
second shift to be performed in conjunction with his reg-
ular duties.' Metz testified that he assigned two business
agents to go to Millstone Unit III and that he was satis-
fied with their report respecting the way S & W elected
to have the standby pump manned.
The particular phase of construction work requiring
the use of the standby diesel pump ended in May 1983.
The parties stipulated that Gigliotti's assignment as oper-
ator of the standby diesel pump would have lasted at
most until May 1983.
E. Analysis
At the outset, Respondent contends that Metz' tele-
phone calls on August 31 and his telegram of that date
were not aimed at having Gigliotti removed from his po-
sition as operator of the backup diesel pump, but rather
were aimed at having his work hours spread among four
operating engineers, particularly as a number of Re-
spondent's members were out of work. I take that con-
tention initially as an assertion by Respondent that it did
not cause or attempt to cause S & W to relieve Gigliotti
of his duties as diesel pump operator. For the reasons
noted below, I find no merit in that contention. There is
no evidence whatsoever that Respondent had on or
That operator however, worked the normal 8-hour shift, 5 days a
week. As a consequence, the standby diesel pump was unattended from
midnight to 8 a.m. each weekday and all day Saturday and Sunday Ap-
parently S & W elected to take the risk, in the event of a power outage
due to a storm, that the area would not be flooded during the hours
when the diesel pump was unattended. Prior to the installation of the
backup pump, the area had been twice flooded during outages.
1384
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 478 (STONE & WEBSTER)
about August 31, 1982 asked S & W to employ out of
work operating engineers to share Gigliotti's work hours,
Respondent never filed any grievance to obtain any mon-
etary remedy respecting the alleged contract violation;
the evidence clearly establishes that Respondent was en-
tirely satisifed with the fact that S & W immediately re-
moved Gigliotti from his assignment as pump operator.
Metz' letter of September I reflected a clear animus
toward Gigliott as Metz wrote that he "will never un-
derstand how an individual could ever make an agree-
ment to further his own financial gains" in the light of
the serious unemployment picture in the area. Were
Metz so concerned over the lack of work for Respond-
ent's members, he would have made some effort to
spread the work hours on the diesel pump among several
operators instead of simply being satisfied with the
report that Gigliotti had been transferred to another job.
The Board has held that a labor organization can at-
tempt to cause unlawful discrimination where the totality
of its conduct evidences that it is requesting such action
and notwithstanding the fact that it did not make an ex-
press unequivocal demand for such action.2
The Board has further held that, where a labor organi-
zation prevents an employee from being hired or causes
his discharge and thus has so demonstrated its power to
affect one's livelihood, the Board will infer that the
effect of that action is to encourage union membership
on the part of all employees who have perceived that ex-
ericse of power.3 The Board in that case further stated
that that inference may be overcome by the labor organi-
zation in showing that its action was necessary to the ef-
fective performance of its functions of representing its
constituency.
The loss of work resulting from the removal of an em-
ployee from a lucrative job assignment at the request of
a labor organization demonstrates its power to effect his
livelihood just as effectively as a request that leads to an
employee being discharged or not hired.4 The burden
was upon Respondent to demonstrate that its actions vis-
a-vis Gigliotti on August 31, 1982, were necessary to the
effective performance of its function of representing its
constituency. There is nothing in the record before me to
suggest that Respondent was engaged in such an effort
other than its bare assertion that it was; its efforts ap-
peared instead to be aimed solely at Gigliotti.
I thus conclude that, as Respondent has failed to rebut
the inference that its actions vis-a-vis Gigliotti on August
31 unlawfully encourage union membership, it violated
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
Respondent has indicated that Metz could not have
been motivated by the efforts of Gigliotti and Mattocks
to displace him as a business manager as the General
Counsel has not offered any direct evidence that Metz
was aware on August 31, 1982, of Gigliotti's efforts
toward promoting a campaign against Metz' leadership.
In the light of my holding above that Respondent had
2 See E/ectrical Horkers IBFEI' Ioxal 262 (Paul El'ctrrical) 264 NLRB
251 (1982): Painters Local 162 IJohnsons' Plasrtring Co .). 233 NI.RB 820.
821 (1977)
:Bo ,,iernarer Local 40 (Envirotech Corp. 1, 266 NLRB 432 (1983)
Cfr Printing Prcmcn Local 284 (La Vi'egas Sun). 230 NL RIB 1104
(1977)
the burden of coming forward with evidence to rebut
the unlawful inference raised by its acts vis-a-vis Gig-
liotti, it is clear that this contention has no legal merit. In
any event, I reject the assertion by Respondent that the
General Counsel has failed to show that Metz was aware
of Gigliotti's activities as of August 31, 1982, insofar as
they pertained to Gigliotti's efforts to mount a slate to
oppose Metz. In that regard, I note that Respondent's
business agent, Frank Luciani, testified that in that post
he often transmits messages at Metz' request and that
Mattocks testified without contradiction that, in mid-
August, Luciani called him in reference to the cartoon
depicting Mattocks and Gigliotti as the "gruesome two-
some" and informed him that Metz wanted him to know,
if "we are running one slate."5 Moreover, the clearly
pretextual basis asserted by Metz for having Gigliotti re-
moved as diesel-pump operator supports the clear infer-
ence that Metz was aware of the union activities of Gig-
liotti and Mattocks. That Metz' reason is a pretext is ap-
parent from the following considerations. First, Gigliotti
had been operating the diesel backup pump for a whole
year as of August 31, 1982, and not for simply 3 months,
as alluded to in Metz' letter of September 1, 1982. Sec-
ondly, although Metz testified that he does not handle
job-assignment problems, he took the initiative and then
some, to have Gigliotti removed from the diesel-pump
assignment. Thus, he telephoned S & W's president in
Boston, sent telegrams giving notice that Respondent
would no longer recognize Mattocks as master mechanic
and so on, all purportedly because his secretary had at
the time mentioned to him that Gigliotti could not make
an executive board meeting because he was working. I
note too that Gigliotti's attendance, as sergeant-at-arms,
was apparently not needed at such a meeting. Further,
Metz' secretary was not called to corroborate his ac-
count. I simply do not accept Metz' testimony that he
acted on the basis of information furnished by his secre-
tary. Lastly, the pretextual nature of Respondent's con-
tention is also evident from Metz' assertion that he sent
the August 31 telegrams in furtherance of an effort by
Respondent to obtain employment for out-of-work oper-
ating engineers and from the undisputed fact that Metz
never asserted such a demand in the telegram, in his tele-
phone discussions, or in any grievance that Respondent
could have filed. Rather, Metz concluded that "every-
thing was fine" when he learned that Gigliotti had been
removed from the diesel-pump assignment. The Board
has held that unlawful motivation may properly be in-
ferred from the clearly pretextual nature of reasons given
by a Respondent in its efforts to justify its actions. 6 The
credited evidence, in any event, discloses that Metz was
out "to get" Gigliotti and that he did so because he
wanted only "one slate."
I find that Respondent, through the conduct of its
business manager Metz, on August 31, 1982, attempted to
cause and did cause S & W to remove its employee
Ralph Gigliotti from his job as pump operator on the
backup diesel pump without sufficient reason and sepa-
* The transcripts inadvertently contain the word "fleet" instead of the
correct word "slate"
I Stoll Industries, 223 NLRB 51 (1976).
1385
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rately because Gigliotti and Mattocks had engaged in ac-
tivities aimed at having Metz replaced as business manag-
er of Respondent. Had it not done so, Gigliotti likely
would have remained on the diesel-pump assignment
until May 1983. 7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. S & W is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. By causing S & W to remove Gigliotti as operator
of the backup diesel pump without sufficient reason and
separately because of Gigliotti's activities in opposing the
reelection of Respondent's business manager, Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act,
I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent shall notify S & W in writing that it has
no objection to any job assignments it may make to Gig-
liotti and similarly notify Gigliotti that it has so notified
S & W. I shall also recommend that Respondent make
Gigliotti whole for any loss of earnings suffered by him
as a result of the discrimination against him. Loss of
earnings shall be computed in the manner set forth in F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).8
I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to
expunge from its files any reference to Gigliotti's unlaw-
ful removal as pump operator for S & W, to notify him
in writing of this and to inform him that his unlawful re-
moval shall not be used as a basis for future action
against him. Furthermore, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent be required to ask S & W to remove from its
files any reference to Gigliotti's unlawful removal and
notify him that it has asked S & W to do so. See R. H.
Macy & Co., 266 NLRB 858 (1983).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed 9
7 The fact that S & W may have reduced its operating costs by trans-
ferring Gigliotti does not mitigate Respondent's unlawful act. For that
matter S & W did correspondingly increase its exposure to flooding
damage. In that regard, the record discloses that on two occasions before
the diesel pump was installed as a standby, flooding of the coffer-dam
caused considerable damage.
I See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
ORDER
The Respondent, Operating Engineers Local 478,
International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation to discriminate against Ralph J.
Gigliotti because he opposed the reelection of Respond-
ent's business manager.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make Ralph J. Gigliotti whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Notify S & W in writing, and furnish a copy of
such notification to Ralph J. Gigliotti, that it has no ob-
jection to his employment in any job assignment.
(c) Expunge from its records any reference to the un-
lawful job removal of Ralph J. Gigliotti and request S &
W in writing to do the same; notify Gigliotti, in writing,
that these steps have been taken and that evidence of its
unlawful act shall not be used as a basis for future action
against him.
(d) Post at its business office, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' 0 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Office-in-Charge for Subregion
39, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Forward a sufficient number of signed copies of the
notice to the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 39 for
posting by S & W at its place of business in places where
notices to employees are customarily posted, if S & W is
willing to do so.
(f) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 39 in
writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
a If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
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 pur-
poses.
'0 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
1386
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 478 (STONE & WEBSTER)
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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation to discriminate against
Ralph J. Gigliotti because he opposed the reelection of
the incumbent business manager.
WE WILI. NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WI: wLI make Ralph J. Gigliotti whole, with interest,
for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of
our discrimination against him.
WE WILL notify Stone & Webster Engineering Corpo-
ration, in writing, and furnish a copy of such notification
to Ralph J. Gigliotti, that we have no objection to his
employment in any capacity.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the
removal of Ralph J. Gigliotti as pump operator for Stone
& Webster on August 31, 1982 and notify him in writing
that this has been done and that evidence of this unlaw-
ful act shall not be used as a basis for future action
against him, and WE WILL ask Stone & Webster to
remove any reference to his unlawful job removal from
its files and WE WILl notify him that we have asked
Stone & Webster to do this.
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAl. 478,
INTERNATIONAl UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO
1387