Pauley Paving Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

PAULEY PAVING COMPANY 861
Pauley Paving Company, Inc and John Dye Case
9-CA-6592
December 12, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On May 24, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Fannie M Boyls issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
limited exceptions and a supporting brief to the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt her recommended Order
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for
the reasons stated by her, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees
with reprisals if they sought to bring in the Union as
their representative, and by unlawfully discharging
employees John Dye, Jerry Strickland, and William
Fraunfelter for engaging in protected concerted
activities, namely, a brief work stoppage to ascertain
what action the Respondent had taken against their
fellow employee, James Dye
In its exceptions Respondent contends that the
issues concerning the termination of the three
employees found to have been unlawfully discharged
are subject to the grievance-arbitration and no-
strike-pending-arbitration provisions in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between the Contractors'
Labor Council of West Virginia, Inc, and Carpen-
ters' State Council, to which the Respondent and
Local 1207, Carpenters, the Union herein, are
signatories Specifically, this contract limits the right
to discharge to "just cause" and gives the aggrieved
employee the right to have his dismissal submitted to
arbitration Thus, Respondent argues, the Board
should either apply the principles enunciated in
Collyer Insulated Wire, Inc, 192 NLRB No 150, and
defer action in this matter to allow the contracting
parties to determine their differences by arbitration,
1 The title of `Trial Examiner' was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19 1972
2 Art VIll of the contract, entitled' Grievances and Arbitration reads
in pertinent part
Section 1 all provisions of this contract shall be subject to
or dismiss the complaint on the ground that the three
employees were engaged in unprotected activity
when they participated in a brief work stoppage that
led to their dismissal, because of the contract's
prohibition against work stoppages where the dis-
pute, as here, is cognizable under arbitration 2
In rejecting these contentions, we find that both the
Respondent and the Union were, at the time of the
discharges, tacitly condoning an arrangement where-
by the provisions of the above contract were not
applied at any of the jobsites on which the complain-
ants were employed, or to them in particular Thus,
the Respondent failed to notify the Union of their
hire and the Union did not select a steward for any
of the jobs on which they worked or furnish
Respondent with forms to list new hires, all of which
the parties were required to do by the terms of the
contract Furthermore, in the case of the dischargees,
Respondent ignored its past practice of hiring
carpenters through the hiring hall, asked them not to
mention the Union until after driving their first nail,
in answer to their inquiries advised them it did not
know if they were covered by the contract, entitled to
its benefits unless members of the Union, or how or
where to go aboutjoining the Union, and threatened
them with reprisals if they sought to bring the Union
in as their representative As for the Union, it made
no attempt to apply or enforce the contract at the
jobsite in question until after the discharges oc-
curred, and then did not offer to take, and took, no
action on behalf of the discharged employees but
instead acquiesced in their dismissal by offering to
send replacements for them if any were needed by
the Respondent In these circumstances, we find no
basis for considering the contract provisions urged
by Respondent to be applicable to the discharges
found to have been unlawful herein
Accordingly, Chairman Miller and Member Penel-
lo deem the principles of Collyer and National Radio,
Company, Inc, 198 NLRB No 1, to be clearly
inappropriate for application to this case (Member
Fanning, for the reasons stated in his dissents in
those cases, would not, under any circumstances,
find the rationale of those decisions applicable) We
are in agreement that the no-strike-pending-arbitra-
tion defense of the Respondent lacks merit because
the contract was not applied, maintained, or en-
forced by the parties at the jobsite on which the
employees were working, or to the employees
themselves Therefore, the decision of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge is affirmed in its entirety
arbitration Pending during and after arbitration there shall be neither
a lockout by the Employer nor a work stoppage by the employees The
decision of the board of arbitration shall be final and binding on the
parties hereto
200 NLRB No 124
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent , Pauley Paving
Company, Inc, Charleston, West Virginia , its offi-
cers, agents , successors, and assigns , shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order
TRIAL EXAMINER' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FANNIE M BOYLs, Trial Examiner This case, initiated
by a charge filed on November 15, 1971 , and a complaint
issued on January 11, 1972, was heard before me at
Charleston, West Virginia, on March 7 and 8 , 1972 The
complaint as amended at the hearing alleges that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
unlawfully interrogating and threatening an employee with
respect to his union activities and discharging employee
James Dye and three other employees because they
engaged in protected union and other concerted activities
Respondent 's answer denies that it engaged in any of the
unfair labor practices alleged Subsequent to the hearing
Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs which I
have carefully considered
Upon the entire record in this case and my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses , I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a West Virginia corporation, engaged in
the building and construction industry as a roadbuilding or
paving contractor It has its principal office in Charleston,
West Virginia During the 12-month period preceding the
issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period,
Respondent had an indirect flow of goods and materials in
interstate commerce valued in excess of $50,000, which it
purchased and caused to be shipped to jobsites in West
Virginia directly from points outside the State of West
Virginia On the basis of these undisputed facts, I find that
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No 1207, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
m THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background and Issues
At all times relevant herein Respondent was a party to
and bound by an agreement between the West Virginia
State Council of Carpenters and the Constructors Labor
Council, of which Respondent was a member This
contract contains a union -security provision which requires
carpenters to become members of the Union within 8 days
after they are hired It obligates the Employer, upon
request by the Union, to furnish the Union with a list of its
employees covered by the contract The Union was
obligated under the contract to select a steward on each
job, whose duties would include ascertaining the standing
of the men employed, and to notify the Employer of the
name of the steward The Employer, on the other hand,
was obligated to furnish a designated official on each job
with the names of new employees not later than 8 days
after they were employed, on forms to be supplied by the
Union
The Union, however, did not select a steward for any of
the jobs on which the four complainants worked and did
not supply Respondent with any forms on which to list the
names of the carpenters it hired And Respondent did not
furnish the Union with a list of the names of the carpenters
it hired
The General Counsel contends that, despite Respon-
dent's contract with the Union, Respondent opposed
attempts by the four carpenters here involved-James Dye,
John Dye, William Fraunfelter , and Jerry Strickland-to
seek membership and assistance from the Union and to
engage in other concerted activities for their mutual aid
and protection and discharged these employees for
attempting to do so The Respondent , on the other hand,
denies any antiunion proclivities and states that it
discharged one of the employees , James Dye, because of
his insubordination and refusal to obey an order of his
foreman and that the other three employees then quit their
employment
There is no substantial dispute regarding the essential
evidentiary facts Whether Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) or (3) of the Act depends upon the inferences to be
drawn from those facts
B The Evidentiary Facts
Although not required by the union contract, it was the
practice of Respondent and other employers in the area to
call the union hall for carpenters as they were needed This
practice was not followed in the case of the four
complainants, however, for one of them, John Dye, who
had known Respondent's president , Dillard Pauley, from a
previous place of employment , approached Pauley directly
and asked for carpentry work for himself, his brother
James, and two of his carpenter friends, Fraunfelter and
Strickland, all of whom were then working with him on
another construction project Pauley needed four carpen-
ters at that time and hired these men about August 2, 1971,
to work first on a Braxton County job, and then on what
was known as the Big Otter or L A Shelton Bridge culvert
project near Ivydale in Clay County, West Virginia
Before hiring the men , Pauley asked John Dye and
Strickland whether they belonged to the AFL-CIO and
they replied that they did not but would like to join it
Pauley told them that he would hire them but asked them
not to mention the Union until after they had driven their
PAULEY PAVING COMPANY 863
first nail because then the Union might "stomp and kick"
but would have to sign the men up
The four men worked on the Braxton County project for
3 or 4 weeks under General Foreman Jim Norman, then
were transferred to the Big Otter job, where they worked
under Foreman Kenneth Dunlap and Superintendent
Leroy Rowley While on the Braxton County job, Strick-
land and James Dye asked Norman about various
deductions from their pay which were noted on their check
stubs and which they thought might be deductions for
union dues or insurance benefits They asked if they were
covered by a union contract and whether they had to join
the Union before they could receive certain benefits
Norman stated that he did not know the answers and that
although he believed Respondent had a contract with the
Union, he did not know where the men should go in order
to join the Union
At the Big Otter project, in about mid-September, the
four men asked Superintendent Rowley about insurance
and other benefits they might be eligible to receive and
whether they should be members of the Union in order to
receive the benefits On this and on a subsequent occasion
when several of the men again brought up the subject
Rowley told them he did not know the answers to their
questions On at least one of those occasions, he told them
they could get the answers by calling Respondent's office,
which was in Charleston about 50 miles away
Some friction developed at the Big Otter project between
the four men and management principally by reason of
what appeared to be favorable treatment accorded employ-
ee James King, a former laborer who was assigned to
carpentry work subsequent to the employment of the four
complainants on that job One source of dissatisfaction
was the fact that King was being assigned overtime work
when such work was not offered to the other men
Fraunfelter, the only one of the four complainants who
wanted overtime work, asked Foreman Dunlap in late
September or early October for overtime work on an
occasion when King was working overtime and was told by
Dunlap that he did not need Fraunfelter Fraunfelter then
complained to his three companions about the denial of
overtime work to him As a result James Dye and
Strickland on the following morning sought out Foreman
Dunlap and asked him why he was refusing to assign
overtime to Fraunfelter Dunlap explained that he had not
told Fraunfelter that he could not work overtime but only
that he was not needed Dunlap then sought out Fraunfel-
ter and told him that if he had any gripes, he should come
to Dunlap and that Dunlap would not hold it against him
He explained that he had not been aware that Fraunfelter
wanted to work overtime and stated that he would try to
remedy the situation
A more serious complaint by the four men was that they
were being laid off for lack of work and at times when
employee King was permitted to work In about mid-
October Fraunfelter told a newly hired carpenter, Boggs, in
the presence of King (who was about 5 feet away), that he
did not think it was right to let one man work while the
others were laid off and that, if they could get the Union
in, the situation could be remedied and all men would be
treated the same King reported these remarks to Superin-
tendent Rowley Rowley then approached Fraunfelter and
asked him if he had "a bitch " Fraunfelter stated that he
did, explaining that he did not think it was right that one
man should be getting the overtime and working while the
others were laid off Rowley then told Fraunfelter that if he
"didn't like it [he] could go find another job " Fraunfelter
replied that he "didn't want to fight" with Rowley Rowley
then stated, "I have heard that you are threatening to bring
the Union in Why don't you9 Why don't you bring it in9"
Fraunfelter repeated that he did not want to fight or argue
with Rowley but he asked why Rowley permitted King to
work and even gave him overtime when the rest of the
carpenters were laid off Rowley responded that King was
"a good man" and walked away i
At the time of this conversation the two Dye brothers
and Strickland were on layoff status In late October, after
being laid off from work for about 2 weeks, they drove to
Respondent's office in Charleston to request layoff slips
from President Pauley which would enable them to draw
unemployment insurance Pauley told them that Respon-
dent had plenty of work for them and directed them to
report back to the jobsite the next morning They did so
and Dunlap put them to work although he told them that
he had wanted to give them a longer layoff
In the meantime, within a day or two after the
Fraunfelter-Rowley incident, Fraunfelter became ill and
was hospitalized for about 2 weeks On or about November
2 he returned to the jobsite to inform Respondent that he
would be ready to return to work during the following
week and, while there, he related to James Dye and
Strickland what Rowley had said to him while they were
on layoff status He expressed concern about losing his job
Strickland told him not to worry, that he would try to
contact the Union During this conversation, King was
about 15 feet away, within hearing distance
On November 5 Strickland did locate Lawrence Jarrett,
the Union's business representative in Charleston, and he
promised to come to the Big Otter jobsite on November 8
or 9 On the same day and just before making contact with
Jarrett, Strickland had an unpleasant encounter with
Dunlap which, according to Strickland, "put more boost
behind" him in locating a representative of the Union The
incident to which Strickland referred occurred when
Dunlap asked Strickland if he would mind trading places
with King because the latter was afraid to work in high
places and Strickland had replied that he "didn't exactly
want to " Dunlap replied "Well, by god it's all right with
me " Strickland did, nevertheless, trade places with King
On Monday, November 8, when Fraunfelter reported
back to work, Strickland told him while all the carpenters,
including King, were working in close proximity to each
other about his conversation with Jarrett and the latter's
promise to come to the jobsite either on that day or the
next The four complainants kept expecting Jarrett to
arrive and talked about it from time to time throughout
that day and the next
On the morning of November 9, as Fraunfelter was
i The above account is based on the credited testimony of Fraunfelter,
substantiated in pertinent respects by that of Rowley
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working on the side of a wing wall, pushing bolts into the
wall and through a tie on the opposite side of the wall,
Foreman Dunlap came up and asked what Fraunfelter was
doing, adding, "I thought I told you not to tighten up those
fucking bolts like this You get it too tight You pull the
wall in You ought to throw the fucking wrenches
over the hill " Fraunfelter did not reply and continued
working He had not in fact been tightening bolts at all
That job was being performed by someone on the other
side of the wall Nevertheless, since Fraunfelter held a
wrench in his hand, Dunlap may well have believed that
Fraunfelter had been tightening the bolts with the wrench
Later at about 11 30 that morning there occurred
another incident-this one involving Foreman Dunlap and
James Dye-which culminated in Dye's discharge shortly
after the lunch period Dye was working on the form,
inserting bolts, as a man on the inside of the form held the
ties in place so that the bolts would go through the holes
Dye was waiting for the man on the inside to change
position, squeezing through a narrow space to the next line
of holes, when Foreman Dunlap, observing a delay of
about 5 minutes, asked Dye the reason for the holdup Dye
replied that he was waiting on the man inside Dunlap told
him, "You get the hell up there and see what is wrong and
see if you can speed that man up a little bit " Dye replied,
"I'm not going up there and holler at that man, he will
let me know when he gets ready " Dunlap then said, "Well,
by god, if you don't want to do it, I'll get somebody who
will " Dye, becoming angry, responded, "Suit your damn
self " This exchange took place in the presence of
Strickland, Fraunfelter, and Superintendent Rowley
As a result of this incident, Dunlap, with the concurrence
of Rowley, decided to discharge James Dye Shortly after
lunch, Dunlap gave Dye his paychecks and told him that
his services were no longer needed, adding, "I can't use a
man who talks back to me " Dye protested that he could
not tell the man inside the form what to do and Dunlap
replied that he "couldn't have anyone talking to [him] that
way in front of everyone else and disobey an order
and still work for [him] "
When he was discharged, Dye hollered something to
Strickland who could not understand what he said but
came to Dye to find out what had happened John Dye
and Fraunfelter also came over to the bank where Dye was
standing Almost simultaneously as James Dye was
explaining that he had been fired, Foreman Dunlap, from
the top of the box culvert, yelled down to the three who
were approaching James Dye, "Have you all quit'?"
Strickland replied for the group, "No, we are not quitting "
Dunlap retorted, "Well, by god, as far as I am concerned
you've all quit Get the hell off the job and don't come
back " Strickland then told Dunlap, "I think we ought to
talk to Mr Pauley about it" Dunlap walked away 2
Fraunfelter and John Dye then drove to the latter's
home, from which John Dye telephoned Pauley's office
His secretary reported that Pauley was talking on another
line, requested Dye to leave his number, and stated that
she would have Pauley return the call Dye told the
secretary that they were having some trouble and wanted
to be sure they could talk to Pauley that evening Dye
stayed at home all evening awaiting a call from Pauley but
the latter never called On the following day all four
complainants drove to Pauley's office to see him but were
unformed there that Pauley had left town and might not be
back for a couple of days They left word that they would
like for him to call them but he never thereafter
communicated with them
In the meantime, on the afternoon of November 9, a
union representative, Danl Stalnaker, arrived at the Big
Otter jobsite for the purpose of signing up the carpenters as
members of the Union Foreman Dunlap informed him
that he had discharged one of the carpenters, that three
others had quit, and that this left him shorthanded When
Stalnaker asked if he needed more carpenters, Dunlap
replied that he thought he could get by "for the time being"
with his two remaining carpenters, King and Boggs
Stalnaker then signed up King and Boggs as union
members and left
C Analysis and Conclusions
It is clear from the record that employees John Dye,
Strickland, and Fraunfelter were engaging in a protected
concerted activity for the mutual aid and protection of
themselves and James Dye when they left their work
stations and approached James Dye on November 93
There is no basis whatever for inferring that the three men
were quitting Foreman Dunlap's statement to them that as
far as he was concerned they had quit and his order that
they leave the jobsite and not come back manifestly
constituted a discharge of the men for engaging in the brief
work stoppage and was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
A more difficult issue is whether Respondent was
unlawfully motivated in discharging James Dye There is
ample basis in the record for inferring that Respondent,
although party to a union-security contract with the
Union, did not relish the idea of interference by the Union
or by any of its employees with the way in which it wished
to operate its business and preferred that its employees not
make contact with the Union about any of their problems
on the job or have any of their fellow employees represent
them Thus, Foreman Dunlap, after being asked by James
Dye and Strickland why he was not assigning overtime
work to Fraunfelter, sought out Fraunfelter and told him
that he should come directly to Dunlap if he had any
gripes And thereafter when employee King informed
Superintendent Rowley of Fraunfelter's statement that if
the employees brought the Union in Respondent would be
required to treat all the carpenters the same instead of
permitting King to work while the others were laid off,
Rowley told Fraunfelter that he could go find another Job
if he did not like the way Respondent was assigning work
and, in effect dared Fraunfelter to try to bring the Union
2 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credited testimony me for another job Dunlap explained at the hearing that he meant that if
of the four complainants corroborated in substantial part by the testimony the men reported to Pauley they could never work for him again
of Dunlap The latter testified that the men did not answer his question 3 Houston Insulation Contractors Association v N L R B 386 U S 664
about whether they were quitting but that when Strickland said that they 668, N L.R B v Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Company, Inc 130
were going to see Pauley, he told them, You boys need not come back to F 2d 503, 505-506 (CA 2)
PAULEY PAVING COMPANY 865
in These statements by Rowley clearly were unlawfully
coercive of the employees' right to engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid and protection and were in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Nevertheless, I am not convinced that Dunlap's dis-
charge of James Dye was discriminatorily motivated Aside
from the fact that there is no evidence that Respondent
was aware prior to the discharge that the employees had
taken any steps to have a union representative appear at
the jobsite (and I do not feel warranted in inferring that
King so informed Respondent merely because he had
reported Fraunfelter's overtime complaint in late Septem-
ber or early October), James Dye's conduct which
precipitated his discharge does amount to insubordination
and refusal to obey Dunlap's work order, as Respondent
asserts This insubordinate conduct occurred in the
presence of Strickland, Fraunfelter, and Rowley and it is
understandable that Dunlap should feel-as he told Dye
when discharging him-that he "couldn't have anyone
talking to [him] that way in front of everyone else " Nor do
I believe, as the General Counsel asserts, that on
November 9 Dunlap was attempting to provoke incidents
which would ostensibly justify a termination of one of the
four, with the hope that the other three would voluntarily
leave Respondent's employment As I see the situation,
Dunlap and Rowley, for reasons best known to themselves
but having nothing to do with the Union, favored King
over all the other carpenters in assigning work This
disparate treatment caused the complainants to have an
unfriendly or resentful attitude toward Dunlap and
Rowley which, in turn, appears to have been reflected back
toward them This and Dunlap's lack of tact in handling
the men, I am convinced, brought about the unfortunate
incident culminating in the termination of James Dye's
employment
I find that a preponderance of the evidence does not
support a conclusion that James Dye was discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act and that
although the discharge of the other three complainants was
in violation of Section 8(a)(1), it was not also in violation of
Section 8(a)(3)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 By threatening an employee with job reprisal for
engaging in union or other concerted activity with fellow
employees for their mutual aid and protection, Respondent
has engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
2 By discharging employees John Dye, William Fraun-
felter, and Jerry Strickland for engaging in concerted
activity for the mutual aid and protection of themselves
and a fellow employee, Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act
3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
4 A preponderance of the evidence does not support
the allegations of the complaint that Respondent violated
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions, and recommended Order herem shall as provided in Sec
Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act by discharging employee
James Dye or that it otherwise engaged in violations of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, my recommended Order will require that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
To remedy the unlawful discharges on November 9,
1971, of employees John Dye, William Fraunfelter, and
Jerry Strickland, my recommended Order will require that
Respondent offer each of them immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if his job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make each of them whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him
Such backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum as provided in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended 4
ORDER
Respondent, Pauley Paving Company, Inc, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening any employee with job reprisal for
engaging in union activities or other concerted activity
with other employees for their mutual aid or protection
(b) Discharging or otherwise discrmimatmg in regard to
the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment of any employees because they have
engaged in concerted activities for their mutual aid or
protection
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer John Dye, William Fraunfelter, and Jerry
Strickland immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make them whole for their
lost earnings in the manner set forth in the section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy "
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions, and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify immediately the above -named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of their right to full reinstatement , upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
National Labor Relations Board or its agents , for examina-
tion and copying , all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to effectuate the reinstate-
ment and backpay provisions of this Order
(d) Post at its operations at the Big Otter jobsite near
Ivydale, West Virginia, if that project has not already been
completed, and at any other places where Respondent
normally posts notices to its employees , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix "5 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or coN Bred by any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director, in wasting, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith 6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations not specifically found herein
5 In the event that the Board s 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 be changed to read
Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board
6 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed this provision shall be modified to read
Notify the Regional Director for Region 9 in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten to punish any employee for
engaging in union activities or other concerted activi-
ties with fellow employees for their mutual aid or
protection
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment of any of our employees
because they have engaged in concerted activities for
their mutual aid or protection
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights under the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL offer reinstatement to John Dye, William
Fraunfelter , and Jerry Strickland , with backpay plus 6
percent interest
WE WILL notify immediately the above-named
individuals , if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States , of their right to full reinstatement,
upon application after discharge from the Armed
Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
PAULEY PAVING COMPANY,
INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board' s Office, Federal Office Building,
Room 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati , Ohio 45202,
Telephone Number 513-684-3686