Sargent Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 630 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sargent Electric Company and Norman J . Kelly and
Homer J. Lee
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union No . 712, AFL-CIO and Homer J.
Lee and Norman J. Kelly. Cases 6-CA-6152,
6-CA-6336, 6-CB-2408, and 6-CB-2418
March 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On September 10, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents each filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel and Charging Party Kelly filed exceptions.
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 as
modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, that the Respondent Company unlawfully
discharged Kelly around June 5, 1972. He ordered
the Respondent Company to make Kelly whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him but, contrary to the urgings of the
General Counsel and Kelly, did not extend backpay
liability to the Respondent Union. We agree with the
General Counsel and Kelly that, in refusing to do so,
the Administrative Law Judge erred.
As stated, Kelly's discharge was unlawful. He was
not fired for the asserted economic reasons. These
were properly found to be mere pretext. Rather, he
was discharged for engaging in certain protected
union-related activities which had evoked the dis-
pleasure of Respondent Union's members on the job,
including those who were supervisors, and Rogers,
the Respondent Union's steward. Despite the obvi-
ous fabricated nature of the pretextual reasons
advanced for Kelly's discharge, Rogers nevertheless
i The steward had previously unlawfully threatened Kelly that he would
no longer cooperate with Kelly because of his unpopular union-related
activities Furthermore , we note that , as found by the Administrative Law
Judge, Rogers had the extraordinary power to remove employees from the
job, a power which he demonstrated to the three dissident employees herein
when he refused to permit them to go to work the day they arrived late at
the jobsite after visiting the offices of Respondent Union earlier that
morning; and later, when one of them was transferred to a different
assignment , as he had threatened the day before Given this demonstrated
power and authority , Rogers' approval of the discharge assumes the
signed the termination form-that is, approved the
discharge-without apparently raising any objections
and clearly without consulting Kelly about the
matter.' Thereafter the Respondent Union's Business
Manager Hill refused, when approached by Kelly, to
make any fair, impartial investigation of the dis-
charge or to press a grievance on Kelly's behalf. Such
refusal by Hill, the Administrative Law Judge rightly
found, constituted an unlawful refusal by the
Respondent Union to accord Kelly fair and proper
representation . In view of the foregoing, it seems
rather obvious to us that the Respondent Union's
failure through its agents to properly represent Kelly
was a cause in Kelly's continued loss of pay resulting
from his unlawful discharge.2
Consequently, we shall provide that the Respon-
dent Union jointly and severally with Respondent
Company make Kelly whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
practiced against him in the manner set forth in that
section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that Sargent
Electric Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No. 712, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
its officers, agents , and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following paragraph for para-
graph A 2(d) of the recommended Order.
"(d) Make whole Homer J. Lee for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
that section of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision entitled "The Remedy," and jointly and
severally with the Respondent Union, and in the
same manner, make Norman J. Kelly whole for any
such loss he may have suffered from his unlawful
discharge on or about June 5, 1972."
characteristic of an affirmative rather than quiescent act
2 Member Fanning agrees for reasons stated in his concurring opinion in
General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No 692, etc (Great
Western Unifrerght), 209 NLRB \o . 52. that the Respondent's refusal to
properly process a grievance for Kelly because of his union-related activities
was unjustifiable and beyond the normal discretion accorded a union in its
representative function . Accordingly. Member Fanning finds that Kelly was
restrained and coerced within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) in his right
to enjoy the mutual aid and protection of his elected representative
guaranteed him under Section 7 of the Act
209 NLRB No. 94
SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 631
2. Add the following paragraph as paragraph B
2(b) and reletter the present paragraph as B 2(c).
"(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent
Company make Norman J. Kelly whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his
unlawful discharge on or about June 5, 1972, in the
manner set forth in that section of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
3. Substitute the attached notices for the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's notices.
APPENDIX A
be permitted on the job at any time; and we will
take effective measures to enforce these instruc-
tions.
WE WILL NOT question our employees concern-
ing their intraunion activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
retaliation for engaging in intraunion activities.
SARGENT ELECTRIC
COMPANY
(Employer)
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we
intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide
by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their choosing
To act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with
or restrains or coerces employees with respect to
these rights.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against our employ-
ees for engaging in activities on behalf of the
Union or on their own behalf.
WE WILL offer to Norman J. Kelly and Homer
J. Lee immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer
available, to substantially equivalent jobs, without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed by them.
WE WILL make Homer J. Lee whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him and, jointly and severally with
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union No. 712, AFL-CIO, we will make
Norman J. Kelly whole for any such loss he may
have suffered as a result of his unlawful dis-
charge.
WE WILL NOT permit any employees to threaten
or assault other employees or exclude them from
their jobs because of their intraunion activities
and physical assaults upon or threats of physical
violence to employees for such purposes will not
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 concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone
412-644-2977.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we
intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide
by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their choosing
To act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that restrains or
coerces employees with respect to these rights.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in our representa-
tion of any employee because of his lack of
membership in this Union or because he engaged
in intraunion activities.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Sargent
Electric Company make Norman J. Kelly whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
result of his unlawful discharge on or about June
5, 1972.
All employees in any bargaining unit represented
by this Union are by law entitled to and will receive
from this Union nondiscriminatory representation in
the processing of their grievances and otherwise
without regard to whether or not they are members
of this Union.
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECIRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL UNION No. 712,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
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 concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office , 1536 Federal Building , 1000 Liberty
Avenue , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone
412-644-2977.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E . WEIL, Administrative Law Judge : On June 9,
1972, Homer Lee filed a charge against International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 712,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Respondent Union, alleging
that Respondent Union by threats and other acts and
conduct restrained and coerced employees of Sargent
Electric Company , hereinafter called Respondent Employ-
er, in violation of their rights under the Act. This charge
was docketed as Case 6-CB-2408 . On June 22, 1972,
Norman J. Kelly filed a charge (Case 6-CA-6152) against
Respondent Employer alleging that he had been discrimi-
nated against by Respondent Employer to the encourage-
ment or discouragement of membership in a labor
organization . On the same day Kelly filed a charge against
Respondent Union alleging that it had caused Respondent
Employer to discriminate against him and had otherwise
engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (Case
6-CB-2418). On September 25, 1972, Lee filed a charge
against Respondent Employer alleging that it constructive-
ly discharged him because of his concerted activities and in
order to discourage such concerted activities in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act (Case 6-CA-6336).
On November 28, 1972, the Regional Director for
Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein-
after called the Board , issued a complaint against the
Respondent Employer on Case 6-CA-6336, alleging as
violative of the Act the discharge of Lee. This complaint
was duly answered by Respondent Employer on December
13, 1972. On March 30, 1973, the said Regional Director
issued a complaint against the Respondent Employer in
Case 6-CA-6152 which was duly answered by Respondent
Employer on April 6, 1973.
On May 31, 1973, the said Regional Director issued a
consolidated complaint on Cases 6-CB-2408 and
6-CB-2418 and on the same day issued an order further
consolidating that consolidated case with Cases
6-CA-6152 and 6-CA-6336. The CB complaint was duly
answered on June 11 , 1973, by Respondent Union denying,
as had Respondent Employer, the commission of any
unfair labor practice . On the issues thus joined the matter
came on for hearing before me at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
on July 9 and 10, 1973 . All parties were present or
represented by counsel , all had an opportunity to call
witnesses, examine and cross-examine them , and to adduce
material and relevant evidence . At the close of the hearing
all parties waived oral argument. Briefs have been received
from all parties and have been duly considered.
On the entire record in this matter and in consideration
of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
Respondent Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, engaged in the building and construction
industry as an electrical contractor . Respondent Employer
annually receives goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000, for use in Pennsylvania, directly from points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respondent
Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE STATUS OF RESPONDENT UNION
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent Employer is engaged at Shipping Port,
Pennsylvania, as a subcontractor in the construction of a
nuclear power station . While its work force fluctuates it
normally runs somewhere around 200 employees, most of
them electricians . All supervisory employees and all
stewards on the jobsite are members of Respondent Union.
Most of the employees, if not all , have been dispatched by
Respondent Union and are either members or "travelers." I
At all times relevant hereto the relationship between
Respondent Employer and its employees has been gov-
erned by a collective-bargaining agreement between
Respondent Union and the Western Pennsylvania Chapter
1 Travelers are members of sister unions who are working within
Respondent Union 's geographical jurisdiction.
SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY
of the National Electrical Contractors Association Incor-
porated, Beaver County Division, of which Respondent
Employer is a member.
On February 28, three employees of Respondent
Employer, all travelers, took the day off to attempt to get
copies of the Union's contract. One or more of the three
prior to that time, had attempted to get a copy of the
contract from the shop steward on the jobsite, Rogers, who
told them that he could not furnish copies and indeed
wished that he himself had one. The three employees, two
of whom are the Charging Parties herein, went to the
Board's office in Pittsburgh, thence were sent to the offices
of the Labor Department in the same building where they
were informed that they had a right to the contract. They
then went to the offices of the International Vice President
Johnson without success, then to the union hall in Beaver,
Pennsylvania, where, in the absence of any officials of the
Union, they asked two ladies who were clerical employees
of the Union for copies. A discussion ensued between
Kelly and one of the ladies, Mrs. Holland, who took the
position that she could not give them copies and could not
see why they felt they had a right to copies since they were
not members of the local. From there they went to the
Hilton Hotel in Pittsburgh where an AFL-CIO convention
was being held. There they met Respondent Business
Manager Hill in the lobby accompanied by one Namadam,
an International officer.
Prior to their arrival at the Hilton, Hill had been
informed by his office that an agent of the Labor Board
had been attempting to reach him. Hill called the Board
agent and was informed of the attempt of the three men to
get copies of the contract. He told the Board agent that
contracts were available to the men if they asked him for
them. When the confrontation took place in the lobby of
the Hilton Hotel, according to the testimony of Lee and
Kelly, Hill led off the conversation by complaining that
they had gotten the "Feds" on him and asked what they
wanted. They told him they wanted copies of the contract.
After some apparently heated discussion, Hill said he did
not have any with him but they could get them the next
morning at 8 o'clock at the union office. Hill denied any
mention of the "Feds", however he admitted that he had
akeady talked to a Federal agent about the problem and
that he knew what the men wanted when they accosted
him in the lobby of the Hilton.
The next morning, as suggested, Lee, Kelly, and Bigler,
the third employee, waited on Hill at the union office at 8
a.m. They were kept waiting until 9:30 when Hill came out
of his private office, met them in a corridor, and gave them
copies of the recently expired contract,2 he also gave them
copies of the local bylaws at their request. As they were
leaving Hill called Kelly aside and asked him if he did not
think he owed Mrs. Holland an apology. Kelly disagreed
and said that if an apology was owed, it was owed him by
Mrs. Holland. According to his testimony, Hill slapped
him on the back and told him to get out of there before he
got in trouble. Hill denied the slap or making this
statement. I credit Kelly's account.
When the three employees left the union office they went
2 Although the contract had recently expired, a new contract was at the
printers and was not yet available. The contract had been changed only in
633
immediately to the jobsite where, as they entered, they met
Steward Rogers who took them to the change trailer where
he had an office. A rather lengthy conversation ensued
during the course of which Rogers told the three employees
that he was disappointed in their actions, especially
Bigler's, and said that the three men had jeopardized his
job through their actions with the Department of Labor
and everything that had happened the day before. He
threatened to, separate Bigler and Lee who had been
working together for 9 or 10 months as working partners
and indeed the next day Bigler was transferred to another
crew. Kelly asked Rogers if the three men were fired.
Rogers answered, "No you're not fired but I am not going
to cooperate with you guys anymore. The working
agreement, you will work by it, it says 8 o'clock and you
weren't here at 8 o'clock so you can't work today. It says 8
till 4:30 and since you weren't here you will not work
today." The three men left the job and went to Bigler's
house where they typed a letter to International Vice
President Johnson to request a meeting with him to discuss
their problems.
Lee testified that one of the reasons that they were
seeking a contract was because they had learned that
health benefits were available to union members pursuant
to the contract and that the travelers had not been given
these benefits. He had been told at Local 712 that travelers
were not covered by insurance and he wanted to find out
where in the contract that was covered.
It appears also that the three men had a complaint that
travelers were discriminated against in the distribution of
overtime and a further complaint that a copy of the referral
procedure was not posted in the offices of the local union
as required by the contract and that the referral procedure
was operated to discriminate against travelers.
On March 15 Bigler, Lee, and Kelly sent a formal
complaint to IBEW Vice President Johnson charging the
local, Hill, and Derbaum, the local president, with specific
violations under the IBEW constitution, the local bylaws,
and the working agreement, specifically in failing to
provide copies of the working agreement and bylaws,
failure to advise the three of the existence of the welfare
trust fund and the benefits available to them thereunder,
failure to maintain a hiring hall procedure as set forth in
the contract, discrimination in dispatching travelers, and
further discrimination against travelers in the assignment
of overtime by assigning it to members who are foremen or
employed by other contractors rather than to travelers who
are regularly assigned to the job on which the overtime
occurs.
When Lee was first dispatched to the Shipping Port job
he was sent out as a welder because he had done some
welding in the past. This is the first job on which Lee had
been employed that required certified welders and he failed
to pass a certification test. Accordingly, he was put on
other work. On March 7, Foreman Stickle sent him to take
another welding test and this time he passed it. On March
17, Stickle transferred Lee to a job welding in an enclosed
shop. Although Lee testified that he had no preference for
the wage scales , according to Hill 's testimony
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
welding he apparently made no complaint on being
transferred to the welding job by Stickle.
A few days after the three travelers received copies of the
working agreement, Lee asked Steward Rogers how to go
about paying the one-quarter of one percent that it speaks
of in the working agreement to make the insurance
effective.3 Rogers answered that Lee had a copy of the
working agreement and that would tell him how to do it.
On March 24, Stickle took Lee into a storage room where
he directed him to straighten up some-boxes and put the
room in order. On this occasion he told Lee that he was
sorry that he had helped Lee with the welding test and that
he had told the Company that Lee was a good man, he
went on to say that Lee "f-d the local, f- d himself, but
f-d himself the most" and said, "you will be sorrier before
this thing is over, mark my word you will be sorry."
On April 5 a meeting or hearing was held before IBEW
Vice President Johnson on the charges filed by the
travelers. In order to attend the hearing they left the jobsite
at noon. Just before they left Foreman Stickle told Lee that
he did not know how Lee ever got involved in the matter
because he had always figured that Lee was a pretty nice
guy and then said that when he was driving down the street
in his Chevy and a Cadillac pulled up beside him he did
not feel that he should have that car. Lee answered that if
he drove down the street in an old car and a new Cadillac
pulled up beside him, if he paid for the new car he should
have it and that is the way he felt about his insurance. That
was the end of the conversation.
As a result of the hearing or meeting before Johnson the
charges were withdrawn by the three employees and a
"statement of clarification" was signed by Hill and
Derbaum. The document states that agreements are
available from the business agent on request from a
"qualified journeyman," that notification of an individual's
qualification for benefits under the welfare fund is
acknowledged to be a responsibility of the trustees, that
referral of applicants for employment shall be in accord-
ance with the procedures outlined in the agreement, and
that construction overtime shall be equally distributed
among the journeymen on the job insofar as is practical
and a list will be posted on the job.
The next day, April 6, Lee walked into the fabricating
shop where he was regularly employed and found several
people standing in the shop, including one Bobby
Namadam, the son of International Representative Mike
Namadam who had been present at the confrontation in
the lobby of the Hilton Hotel (supra). Foreman Stickle was
also present. As Lee walked in, Namadam said, "So you've
got the balls to come back here today. If you stay on this
job I'm going to break your f-g head." Lee said, "Maybe I
had better leave"; Namadam said, "Well maybe you
better." Lee backed out the door and started to leave the
jobsite when he ran into Kelly. He told Kelly what had
happened and Kelly took him to the office of Steward
Rogers where he found Rogers and Earl Long, his
assistant. Lee told Rogers what had happened and Rogers
3 The working agreement provides that all electrical contractors pay into
the trust fund a sum equal to 6 percent of the weekly gross electrical payroll
and then provides
Paragraph (3) All employees hereby agree to pay in to such Trust Fund
called Business Manager Hill by telephone. He put Lee on
the telephone with Hill who said that he could guarantee
that Lee would have no more problems with Namadam,
but he could not guarantee it with everyone else and for
Lee's safety he felt that he should ask him if he wanted to
transfer from the job. Lee said that he would think it over
and returned the telephone to Rogers , who talked to Hill.
After he hung up, Kelly told Rogers that Lee had no way
to get home so he was going to take him home and he did
so and returned to the jobsite. When Kelly returned to the
jobsite he went to his work area and told his foreman
where he had been and the foreman acknowledged that the
steward had told him and said that Kelly should proceed to
work.
According to Hill's testimony, during this conversation
he offered to transfer Lee to another employer and Lee
said he would think it over.
On April 10, the following Monday, Lee went back to
the job. Fearing to go on the jobsite alone, he had made
arrangements over the weekend to meet with Kelly at the
entrance and Kelly accompanied him to Roger's office.
Lee told Rogers that he didn't want to transfer off the job
but he was afraid to work in the fabricating shop and
would like a transfer to one of the crews in the field.
According to Lee's testimony, Rogers answered that he
would speak to Hill about a transfer and could not give
him an answer right away .4
Lee told Rogers that he would not stay on the job while
they were reaching a decision and asked Rogers to give
Kelly the answer, yes or no, when a decision was reached.
The next day Kelly asked Rogers if a decision had been
reached with regard to Lee's transfer and Rogers said that,
due to the fact that the employer had spent so much money
on Lee with the welding test, they felt he should stay in the
fabricating shop. He asked Kelly to relate this to Homer
Lee and Kelly did so.
Lee never returned to the job, nor did he further seek a
transfer or a new dispatch from the Respondent Union, or
the employer.
Norman J. Kelly testified that, after the filing of the
charges by the three travelers, most of his fellow employees
stopped talking to him, other than the necessary communi-
cation having to do with the work and that Foreman Rich
Leonard continuously watched him although he was not in
a supervisory capacity over Kelly. Kelly went to his
foreman, John Bender, and asked him if he was aware of
the way the men and Foreman Leonard had been treating
him. Bender answered that he had noticed a lot of things
like that himself. Kelly then asked Bender if he was
satisfied with the way Kelly was working, saying that he
would be glad to change if Bender was having any
problems with him. Bender answered that Kelly's work was
satisfactory and that he should keep on working as he had
been doing. Kelly asked Bender if he would tell the
steward that Kelly wanted to speak to him on the matter
and later in the afternoon Earl Long came to Kelly's
workplace. Kelly asked Long if he was aware of how
a sum equal to one-fourth of one percent of their weekly electrical gross
wages, together with the required reporting forms to the office of the
public member on or before the 14th day following each payroll date.
4 According to Kelly's testimony , Rogers said he would have to check
with Gill, the general foreman
SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 635
Bigler, Lee, and Kelly had been treated since they filed
charges and Long said that he was not aware of that,
whereupon Kelly related some incidents to Long and told
Long that he thought that the Union should protect the
three men.
A few days later Kelly went with Bigler, an apprentice he
was working with, and Steward Rogers to talk to General
Foreman Gill about a complaint that Bigler had concern-
ing some trouble with a fellow employee. Gill asked Bigler
and Kelly why they had filed charges against the Union
and said that when he had traveled he didn't go into other
local unions stirring up trouble, but always did in Rome as
the Romans do. Bigler asked Gill if he was dissatisfied and
wanted to fire Bigler and Kelly. Gill said he had no
problem with either one of them, he had no bad reports, he
just wanted to know why they were trying to start trouble
in the Union.
On the first or second day of June, Foreman Bender left,
apparently on vacation, and his place was taken by a new
foreman, Ken Herman. Kelly worked under Herman's
supervision for 3 days. On the fourth workday, Herman
came to him early in the morning and told him to get his
tools and lunchbox and come with him. As they walked out
of the jobsite, Herman told Kelly he was firing him and
Kelly asked why. Herman said, "Because I don't like you."
They walked into the office of General Foreman Gill.
Assistant Steward Long was in the office and had a
termination slip that had already been signed by Steward
Rogers. Long asked Kelly to sign the termination slip.
Kelly read the termination slip and said he didn't go along
with the reasons for the termination and asked him if
Rogers did so. Long said, "Evidently, because he had
signed it." Kelly asked to talk to Rogers, but Long said
that he was not available, whereupon, Kelly refused to sign
the termination slip and asked if anyone from the
Company was going to sign it. Herman said he would be
glad to sign the slip and did so. Long then put Kelly into a
truck with his tools and took him out of the jobsite.
The termination slip gave as a reason for termination
"Unsatisfactory work. Leaving work area without permis-
sion."
Kelly went immediately to the union hall to inform Hill
that he had been terminated. Hill asked him what he didn't
go along with and Kelly told him that he thought his work
was satisfactory and he did not understand the part about
leaving the work area without permission because nobody
had explained it to him. He asked to file a grievance but
Hill told him that there was no grievance committee set up
and there was no way to file a grievance; he said that the
only grievances they had were in connection with the
referral system, but that he would check into the matter
and explain it the next day to Kelly if he returned to the
union hall.
The following day Kelly returned and met with Hill. Hill
had a typewritten list with some five items on it which he
said were the reasons given to him on his visit to the jobsite
for the discharge.
One of the five referred to an occasion in December or
early January when the job steward saw Kelly in the
parking lot 10 or 15 minutes before quitting time. Hill
augmented this by saying that Kelly had been absent quite
a bit. Kelly pointed out that the only rule on the bulletin
board about absenteeism was that the foreman was to be
notified in advance and if the absent employee did not call
in within 3 days he would be terminated; since he had not
been out for 3 days at any time he had not broken this rule.
Kelly also pointed out that he was one of a number of
employees who had left early on the occasion in December
and that they had been admonished by the shop steward in
a group.
Another item mentioned by Business Agent Hill was that
on some particular day he had been caught looking at the
overtime list in the steward's office. Kelly pointed out that
on several occasions when he passed by the steward's
office on business he had stopped and looked at the
overtime list to make sure that it was being kept up in
accordance with the agreement which resulted from the
April 5 meeting. In fact he said the overtime list had not
been kept up in accordance with the agreement. On one
occasion the steward had not been in the office and
another employee, whose name he could not remember,
had come in and found him looking at the overtime list.
"As far as unsatisfactory work goes," Hill said, "that is
entirely up to the foreman whether he is satisfied or
whether you satisfy him or not." Hill did not ask Kelly
whether he had ever been warned by the foreman or
whether his work was unsatisfactory.
Kelly asked again about filing a grievance and Hill again
pointed out that there was no grievance committee and
told Kelly that if he did not like the way Hill had decided,
that is to say to accept the discharge without further
activity on his behalf, Kelly could go to see Mr. Johnson
and he added, "you know where his office is, I'm sure." On
this point Kelly left Hill's office.
According to the testimony of Business Agent Hill
between the first and second visit of Kelly to his office
after the discharge, he investigated the discharge. He did
not recall whether he investigated by telephone or on the
job, but thought that he had spoken to Kelly's immediate
foreman, Herman, Area Foreman Tamporante, General
Foreman Gill, and Steward Rogers. He could recall no part
of his conversation with Herman but stated that Tampo-
rante or Gill had given as the reason for discharge that
Kelly was away from his job too much and that some of
the work he did had to be ripped out. He did not know and
there is no evidence who prepared the termination form or
made the decision to discharge Kelly. The form was signed
by Herman but only after Kelly was given the form and
asked if anybody from management was going to sign it.5
Respondent Employer called no witnesses other than Hill.
Accordingly, there is no evidence on the record concerning
the alleged reasons for discharge other than that adduced
in examination and cross-examination of Kelly.
Discussion and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the admonition to
Kelly on February 29 at the union hall to get out of the
5 Although I am certainly not qualified as an examiner of questioned
documents, it does not appear that the handwriting on the termination form
is that of Herman
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union hall before he ended up with his "ass in a sling" was
a threat relating to Kelly's protected concerted activity,
bearing the implication that Kelly could expect bodily
injury if he, Bigler, and Lee persisted in their activities, and
constituted therefore an independent violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A)•
I reject this contention. While I find that Kelly, Bigler,
and Lee were engaged in protected concerted activities in
their attempt to get copies of the contract, which ostensibly
governed their employment, and to achieve for themselves
benefits guaranteed either in the contract or in the Union's
working rules, it is not all that clear that this threat of Hill
to Kelly concerned his activities in that regard, rather than
his disagreement with the office employee, the subject then
under discussion between Hill and Kelly. Although it is
clear that considerable animosity against all three of the
dissidents existed in Hill's mind, this particular threat does
not appear to be related to Kelly's protected concerted
activities. Accordingly, I shall recommend the complaint
be dismissed with regard this threat.
The General Counsel contends that Steward Rogers'
statements to Lee, Kelly, and Bigler on their return to the
jobsite after getting copies of the contract from Hill
constituted threats and coercion. Rogers complained that
the actions of the three men had placed his job in jeopardy
and told them that they could not expect any cooperation
from him as long as they were left on the job. No question
is raised that Rogers made these statements, or that, in
addition, his threat to use Bigler's relationship with his
foreman as a weapon and to separate Lee and Bigler,
which was accomplished the next day, reveals Rogers'
animosity to the three men. Surely this animosity did not
result entirely from their attempt to get the contracts but
rather resulted from their more basic attempt to get the
health and welfare benefits theretofore available only to
members of Respondent Local and to get what they
deemed to be their fair share of overtime.
Respondent Union contends that Rogers' statements are
not coercive but that, in fact, they amounted to nothing but
an assurance on Rogers' part that they would be given all
the protection of the contract, even as the other employees.
A determination of whether Rogers' statements have a
coercive impact must be founded at least in part on a
consideration of Rogers' specific place in the scheme of
things on this jobsite. Rogers, as the union steward on this
large job, was the only union "presence" on the job. The
job itself was unusual if not unique in that the relationship
between the Union and the Employer is very close. All
representatives of Respondent Employer are members of
the local and indeed Respondent Employer's brief seems to
take the position that its supervisors, even General
Foreman Gill, are not so much representatives of Respon-
dent Employer as union members. Business Agent Hill, the
only witness called by either Respondent, testified that
shop stewards had the authority to remove employees from
the job for breach of Respondent Employer's rules, and no
grievance procedure even existed on the job, although the
contract which purportedly covered the job provided for
the establishment of a grievance committee. The testimony
of Hill, as well as the facts adduced in the hearing, reveals
that the only means by which an employee can grieve is
through intraunion charges against union officers or fellow
members. Under all of these circumstances the job
steward, the Union's eyes. ears , and mouth on the jobsite,
has extraordinary power which was amply demonstrated to
the three dissident employees by Rogers in his refusal to
permit them to go to work because they had been held up
by Hill at the union office so long that they did not get to
the jobsite by 10 o'clock. Lee's testimony that other
employees came to work at least that late and were
permitted to go to work stands unrebutted on the record.
This refusal on Rogers' part to permit the three men to go
to work on February 29 clearly demonstrated not only the
power Rogers had, but the propensity of Rogers to use it in
protection of his position, vis-a-vis the Union and the
Employer. A further demonstration by Rogers of his power
and authority is revealed in the immediate transfer of
Bigler on the following day as Rogers had threatened.
Given the demonstrated power and authority of Rogers
on the job, his propensity to use that power defensively and
his threat that the three men could not expect any
cooperation from him as long as they were left on the job, I
agree with the General Counsel that the coercive nature of
that statement is patent and that the threat violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Also, as the General Counsel contends, Rogers ' threat of
reprisal by using the relationship of Bigler and his foreman
as a weapon left the three employees no doubt that their
working conditions could be changed by Rogers because of
their engagement in protected concerted activities. This too
violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and I so find.
B. The Lee Incident
After Lee and his two fellow employees filed their
charges and the charges were resolved, Namadam, the son
of the International representative, in the presence of
Foreman Stickle, who unquestionably is a supervisor,
threatened to break Lee's head if he remained on the job,
Lee backed out of the fabrication shop where the incident
took place and went to Steward Rogers' office to report the
incident. While he was in the office Stickle entered, saw
him, and left without speaking. Lee talked to Hill by
telephone and Hill told him that he could control
Namadam but that he had better leave the job because Hill
could not guarantee to protect him against all the other
union members.6
Respondent Employer takes the attitude that it had no
duty with regard to Lee inasmuch as this was an intraunion
matter. This, of course, is not quite what the Board has
enunciated the law to be. An employer has an affirmative
duty to safeguard his employees from union or antiunion
groups of employees.7 In the instant situation, Stickle did
nothing to safeguard Lee, on the contrary, by his silence,
he appears to have acquiesced in the threat of Namadam.
h Hill's acknowledgment that Lee had reason to be concerned with the reading the charges aloud at a membership meeting At a subsequent
reaction of the members of Respondent Union reveals the seriousness with meeting, according to Hill's testimony , he warned the membership against
which the Union viewed the charges filed by the three dissidents. The the direct action contemplated by Namadam.
animosity of all the members was apparently aroused by Hill's action in 7 Newton Brothers Lumber Company, 103 NLRB 564
SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 637
Indeed, little more could be expected of Stickle who,
theretofore, had warned Lee that he would be sorry for
filing those charges in such terms that, as the General
Counsel urges, his statements constitute no less than a
threat of retaliation.
The knowledge of Supervisor Stickle must be imputed to
Respondent. The record does not reveal whether he ever
informed higher supervision of the threat by Namadam to
Lee. At any rate, Lee was never at any time afforded any
assurance by Respondent Employer that it would in any
way attempt to protect him. His departure from the job
under these circumstances appears to be an exercise in
good judgment. Respondent Employer argues that it
cannot be charged with an unfair labor practice in this
situation because Lee never attempted to go to any official
of Respondent Employer over the head of the top officials
to be found on the jobsite, all of whom are members of
Respondent Union. The Respondent Employer cannot
disclaim responsibility for the job by the expedient of
having no supervision on the job who were not union
members. An employer's supervisors remain agents of the
employer and their knowledge and actions are imputable
to an employer, whether or not they are members of the
union, and if the employer chooses to permit them to use
their supervisory authority in furtherance of their union
aims, it is no less responsible for the results of their actions.
The actions called for here would appear to include
assurances to Lee that his safety would be insured and
admonitions to his fellow employees that he was not be
attacked on thejob. Neither was forthcoming.
Under all the circumstances of Lee's departure from the
job, I conclude that he is the victim of a constructive
discharge which violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act,
and I so find.
Finally, Respondent Employer contends that Lee, for
reasons of his own, abandoned any right to his job at
Shipping Port, relying on his testimony on cross-examina-
tion that by April 15 he decided he did not want to go back
to the Beaver job or work out of the Beaver local.
However, by April 15, and to the present day as far as the
record reveals, no one has ever made any attempt to assure
Lee that he would be protected from retaliation by
members of Respondent Union on any jobsite. Indeed the
only information he had on that score was Hill's statement
to him that he could not guarantee to protect him.
Respondent Employer has not shown that it has yet
offered protection to Lee if he were to return to the
Shipping Port jobsite. Under the circumstances, his
testimony scarcely adds up to the conclusion reached by
Respondent Employer "that he just did not want to work
out of the Beaver local."
C. The Discharge of Kelly
Kelly continued in Respondent 's employ after Lee's
departure met with "the cold shoulder" on the part of his
fellow employees and worked under the continuing
surveillance of Foreman Rich Leonard . His own foreman,
John Bender , acknowledged that he had noticed Kelly's
problems and told Kelly that he was satisfied with Kelly's
work and that he should keep on working as he had been
doing . Gill, the general foreman , asked by Bigler and Kelly
if he was dissatisfied and wanted to fire them, said that he
had no problem with either one of them, he had no bad
reports. He just wanted to know why they were trying to
start trouble with the Union. However, immediately upon
Foreman Bender's departure , the new foreman, Ken
Herman, after only 3 days of supervision over Kelly,
discharged him and told him that the reason was that he
did not like Kelly.
We find Respondent 's alleged reasons for the discharge
in three different places . In its answer, Respondent
Employer states that Kelly was discharged for failure to
properly conduct the work required of him, for failure to
obey company rules and regulations, and for creating
disturbances and loss of work productivity on the job. The
termination form states that he was discharged for
unsatisfactory work and for leaving the work area without
permission and the explanation allegedly given to Business
Agent Hill referred to an occasion in December or January
when Steward Rogers admonished Kelly and a group of
other employees for leaving early; another occasion in the
very recent past when Kelly had been caught looking at the
overtime list in the steward's office; another that he had
been absent quite a bit and that he left the work area; and,
finally, that his work was unsatisfactory.
I credit Kelly's testimony that Bender and Gill both told
him that his work was satisfactory and that he should
continue working as he had been doing so. These
statements were both made after the harassment of the
three travelers commenced on April 5. Among the reasons
given for Kelly's discharge is the incident of December or
January which is not shown ever to have come to the
attention of the Employer, prior to the hearing. Much was
made by Respondents of the absenteeism of Kelly.
However, Kelly testified without contradiction that other
employees were absent more than he and there is no
showing that any absenteeism took place during the last 2
months of his employment. The occasions on which he left
his job were the three occasions where he accompanied
other employees to talk either to the steward or to
supervision. This is not normally considered leaving the
job and there is no evidence that Respondent Employer
had any rule forbidding employees to talk to the shop
stewards or to their supervision. Equally, there is no
evidence that Kelly was ever criticized for leavingliis job
prior to his discharge. As far as the alleged poor work is
concerned the only evidence on the record is that of Kelly
who said that he did not perform any poor work and that
none of the "tray" that he installed or fabricated had to be
pulled down . He stated further that he was never criticized
for his work. Business Manager Hill testified that one of
the reasons given for their discharge was that tray that
Kelly had installed had been taken down, however he
could not recall who had informed him of this and could
not recall whether he had even talked to Kelly 's immediate
foreman who would be most likely to know of such
information. I do not credit his hearsay testimony against
Kelly's assertion. If indeed Kelly's work had been lacking
both Respondent Union and Respondent Employer had
available the supervisory personnel who could have so
testified, but none were called. Accordingly, I credit
Kelly's assertion that he was unaware of any work that had
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not been adequately performed and that he was unaware
of any of his work that had been torn down. The one
reason given by Respondent Employer for the discharge
that rings true is that Kelly caused too much trouble. The
trouble he caused, however, was with the Union and more
specifically with the shop steward and the business
representative of the Union against whom he had filed
charges, and both of whom revealed to him their dislike
and displeasure with his activities. Clearly these activities,
taken in concert with Lee and Bigler with the end of
requiring the business agent and the shop steward to
refrain from discriminatory activities against travelers, are
protected concerted activities within the meaning of the
Act. The Respondent Employer cannot validly discharge
an employee for filing charges against the Union. Any
disturbances on the job that resulted from the charges were
not shown to have been caused by Kelly but rather to have
been directed at Kelly, Lee, and Bigler. I consider that the
reasons advanced by Respondent Employer are pretextual
and indeed Respondents made no effort to support them
before me. The fact that Respondent Employer advanced
pretextual reasons gives rise to an inference that the real
reason for the discharge is an invalid one. I have no
hesitation in finding that the real reason for the discharge
of Kelly was the animosity directed against him by his
fellow employees and by the supervisors, all of whom were
members of the Union, because of his union activities.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Employer is guilty of
a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act in
discharging Kelly because of his intraunion activities.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent Union,
by its failure to afford fair representation to Kelly in his
grievance stemming from his discharge, violated Section
8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, relying on the Board's
decision in Hughes Tool Company, 147 NLRB 1573.
The background of the allegation has been spelled out
above. The hostility by Hill and Rogers to the three
dissident travelers is clear. When Kelly met with Hill
asking the reasons for the discharge, Kelly told him the
reasons given to him and expressed his disagreement with
them, whereupon Hill said he would check into it and
"explain it" the next day. As the General Counsel points
out, Kelly was not looking for explanations, he wanted
representation. Hill's choice of words was, I think, a clue to
his reaction to Kelly's discharge; i.e., he was prepared only
to explain the discharge to Kelly, not to attempt to fight it
on Kelly's behalf. The following day after an "investiga-
tion" Hill had a typewritten list of reasons allegedly given
to him by the Respondent Employer for the discharge.
However , his answers under cross-examination as to how
this list was compiled were so unsatisfactory as to leave
doubt whether Hill in fact had conducted any investigation
other than to talk with Rogers who shared Hill's antipathy
to Kelly. One of the reasons on the list, the reprimand in
January by Rogers, must have been obtained from Rogers
as there is no indication that it was ever reported to
Respondent Employer.
Hill did not talk to Herman or if he did so had no
recollection of what Herman said. Hill did not inquire
whether Kelly had been warned or whether other employ-
ees were treated the same way for the same alleged
infractions. When Kelly insisted on filing a grievance Hill
told him that there was no grievance procedure, that there
was no grievance committee, and that the only way he
could file a grievance would be to file intraunion charges
against Hill, Rogers , or some other union member.
Presumably only if the intraunion charges ultimately led to
a directive from the International Union to Hill to follow a
grievance procedure would a grievance procedure then be
instituted.
There is no provision for written grievance to be filed,
the contract provides that grievances should be adjusted by
the duly selected representatives of both parties who, if
they are unable to agree within 48 hours, shall refer them
to a joint conference committee. According to the
testimony of Hill , a joint conference committee has never
been selected. It would appear therefore that no grievance
ever remained unresolved between Hill and whomever he
negotiated with, presumably General Foreman Gill.
It is apparent that the so-called investigation conducted
by Hill was no more than a fiction. Indeed Hill testified
that he continued the investigation after he had informed
Kelly that he would do nothing for him; it appears that the
investigation was undertaken solely to put together enough
reasons for the discharge to enable Respondents to defend
themselves in the event charges were filed . It is perhaps
naive to expect justice to ensue from a situation such as
this where the employee had offended both the representa-
tives of his union and the representatives of management
who were members of the Union by his actions to claim his
share of the benefits of union membership. There was no
neutral party to whom Kelly could appeal; it was in the
best interests of the Employer to maintain a good
relationship with the Union ; and the union members and
agents were Kelly's real adversary in this matter. I consider
that the conduct of Hill with relation to the discharge of
Kelly was arbitrary and invidious, it amounted to nothing
more than a refusal to grieve on Kelly's part and resulted
in Hill throwing the weight of the Union in support of the
Employer against Kelly, who, I have found above, had
good reason to grieve. Accordingly, I find that the Union,
by its failure even to consider supporting Kelly in his
grievance , violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
I have found above that Supervisor Stickle threatened
Lee with reprisal because of his participation in filing the
internal union charges. I find that the threat is violative of
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. The General Counsel would
have me find that the questioning by General Foreman
Gill of Kelly and Bigler of why they filed charges and why
they were trying to cause trouble constituted an interroga-
tion in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act. I conclude
that the General Counsel's position is well taken. Although
it seems that Gill's curiosity about the reason for Kelly's
filing of the charges would be more appropriately attribut-
ed to his union membership than to his supervisory status,
as Respondent Employer points out, the impact of such
interrogation on an employee would normally be no less
coercive. It appears that Gill is the highest ranking
supervisor of Respondent Employer on the jobsite. Kelly
and Bigler had gone to him in an attempt to seek some
measure of reassurance and protection from the activities
of their fellow employees and from their supervisors. To be
SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY 639
met, as they were, with the question why they had filed
charges and the admonishment that they should conform
to the customs of the local is quite as coercive as any
interrogation can be . I find that Gill's questioning and
remarks constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR L&BOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent Employ-
er's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Homer J. Lee and Norman J. Kelly
because of their concerted protected activities, Respondent
Employer has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By threatening and interrogating employees about
their intraunion activities and by the discharge of the
employees set forth above, Respondent Employer has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By arbitrarily and invidiously failing to support
Norman J. Kelly in the handling of a grievance stemming
from his discharge, by threatening the withdrawal of
representation by the Union because of employees engag-
ing in intraunion activity, and by threatening to cause the
Employer to take reprisals against employees because of
their protected activities, Respondent Union is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I recommend that they cease and
desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative
action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act. Having found that Respondent Employer unlawfully
discharged Homer J. Lee and Norman J. Kelly, its
employees, I recommend that Respondent Employer
reinstate them and make them whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, by making payment to them of the sum of
money equal to that they would have earned but for the
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and reccmmended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
discrimination in accordance with the principles enunciat-
ed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
The General Counsel requests that by way of remedy
Respondent Union should be ordered to reimburse Kelly
in the manner set forth in the Board orders in Port Drum
Company, 180 NLRB 590, and Local 485, International
Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO
(Automotive Plating Corp.), 183 NLRB 1286, and that the
liability of Respondents should be joint and several. This is
not the case that was set forth in Port Drum and Automotive
Plating. Here there is no evidence that the Union caused
the discharges and the discriminatees will be made whole
by Respondent Employer. While the basic dispute does not
necessarily concern Respondent Employer, it is responsible
for the actions taken by its supervisors even though they
are motivated by intraunion considerations. Accordingly, I
reject the argument of the General Counsel and provide as
to the Union only a cease-and-desist order.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDERS
A. Respondent Employer, Sargent Electric Company,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
of its employees to discourage them from engaging in
intraunion activities.
(b) Threatening or interrogating its employees about
their intraunion activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights to organize and bargain collectively or to refrain
from such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer Norman J. Kelly and Homer J. Lee full
reinstatement to their former jobs, dismissing, if necessary,
employees subsequently hired to replace them, and if such
former jobs no longer exist reinstate them to substantially
equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges.
(b) Advise and admonish its employees and its supervi-
sors that Respondent will not permit employees to be
threatened or assaulted by other employees or other
persons on the jobsite.
(c) Advise Homer J. Lee that upon his return to the
Shipping Port jobsite Respondent Employer will undertake
to protect him against threats and assaults by other
employees.
(d) Make whole Homer J. Lee and Norman J. Kelly for
their lost earnings in the manner set forth above in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
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.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(f) Post at its jobsite at Shipping Port, Pennsylvania,
copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A"9 and
"Appendix B." Copies of Appendix A, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent
Employer and copies of Appendix B after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent
Union shall be posted by Respondent Employer immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
Employer to see that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Union, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 712, AFL-CIO,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining and coercing employees of Sargent
Electric Company in the exercise of their right to engage in
intraunion activities, including filing of charges against the
officers of Respondent Union.
(b) Refusing and refraining from giving employees good-
faith representation in grievances filed by said employees
against Sargent Electric Company.
(c) Otherwise restraining or coercing employees of
Sargent Electric Company in any other manner in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights to organize and bargain
collectively or to refrain'from such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, or other
places where it customanly posts notices copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B." 10 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, shall, after being -duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent Union, be posted by Respon-
dent Union immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Additional
copies of said Appendix B shall be duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent Union and
furnished to the said Regional Director for transmission to
Respondent Employer for posting by Respondent Employ-
er in accordance with the Order directed to Respondent
Employer above.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
9 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by the National Labor Relations Board "
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant 10 See fn 9, supra