Sullivan, Long & Hagerty

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1991

303 N.L.R.B. 1007 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1007
303 NLRB No. 158
SULLIVAN, LONG & HAGERTY
1 The Respondent Employer has requested oral argument. The request is de-
nied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
2 Both Respondents have excepted to some of the judge’s credibility find-
ings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law
judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant
evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
Additionally, we correct the following errors the judge made in the section
of his decision entitled ‘‘The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices’’ regarding the
dates of certain events: in par. 2, LL. 6 and 7, the judge stated that ‘‘in June
and July of 1987,’’ whereas the correct year was 1988; in the following line
the judge stated that there were layoffs on ‘‘June 24, July 1 and July 6,
1988,’’ whereas the third layoff actually occurred on July 8; in the fifth para-
graph, second line, the judge stated that Blazer’s referral occurred in ‘‘August
1988,’’ whereas the correct year was 1986; in the following line the judge stat-
ed that Ted Gerrard became union steward in ‘‘December of 1988,’’ whereas
the correct year was 1987; and, finally, in the same paragraph, L. 16, the judge
stated that Gerrard ‘‘approached [Blazer] in January 1989,’’ whereas the cor-
rect year was 1988. We find that these misstatements do not affect our ulti-
mate conclusions here.
3 We agree with the judge that Respondent Employer’s refusal to rehire
Billy Blazer in October 1988 was ‘‘inextricably intertwined’’ with its earlier
discriminatory layoff of Blazer in July 1988 that the Union caused. Because
we adopt the judge’s finding of a violation on this ground, we do not rely
on the judge’s further discussion regarding whether the Respondent Employer
unlawfully decided not to rehire Blazer after learning of Blazer’s alleged pro-
tected concerted activities at other jobsites.
Sullivan, Long & Hagerty and Billy Blazer.
Boilermakers Local Lodge 108 and Billy Blazer.
Cases 10–CA–23837 and 10–CB–5310
July 31, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT
On November 21, 1990, Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. Re-
spondent Employer and Respondent Union filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs1 and has
decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty,
West Jefferson, Alabama, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, and Respondent Boilermakers Local
Lodge 108, Midfield, Alabama, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
Victor A. McLemore, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Sidney F. Frazier Jr., Esq. and David B. Walston, Esq. and
William K. Thomas, Esq. (Cabanis, Johnston, Gardner,
Dumas & O’Neal), of Birmingham, Alabama, for Re-
spondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty.
George C. Longshore, Esq. (Longshore, Nakamura &
Quinn), of Birmingham, Alabama, for Respondent Boiler-
makers Local Lodge 108.
Carol Rasmussen, Esq., of Birmingham, Alabama, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard by me at Birmingham, Alabama, on Sep-
tember 25, 26, and 27, 1989, pursuant to an amended con-
solidated complaint filed by the Regional Director of Region
10 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on
July 11, 1989, and is based on a second amended charge in
Case 10–CA–23837 and a second amended charge in Case
10–CB–5310 both filed on June 26, 1989, by Billy Blazer,
an Individual (the Charging Party). The complaint alleges
that the Respondent Boilermakers Local Lodge 108 (the
Union or the Boilermakers or Local Lodge 108) attempted to
cause and caused the layoff by the Respondent, Sullivan,
Long & Hagerty (the Employer or Sullivan, Long & Hagerty
or SL&H) of the following named employees: Billy Blazer,
Joseph Ballard, Hugh Gaines, Denford Harper, John Mason,
Ricky Mayfield, Gordon Neeley, Danny Romine, Lewis E.
Stillwell, David Young, Randy Renninger, Ricky Rutherford,
James Stone, Gerald Teat, Euel Miller, Eddie Monk, and
Wayne McCarty because of their engagement in concerted
activities with other employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act) and that SL&H laid off and refused to recall
the aforesaid employees because of their engagement in con-
certed activities with other employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The com-
plaint further alleges that SL&H on or about October 24,
1988, refused to ‘‘recall’’ (sic) ‘‘rehire’’ employee Billy
Blazer because of his engagement in concerted activities with
other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The complaint is joined by the
answer of Local Lodge 108 filed on July 21, 1989, and by
the answer of Sullivan, Long & Hagerty filed on July 28,
1989, wherein both Respondents deny the commission of any
violations of the Act.
On the entire record, including my observations of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, a review of the documentary evi-
dence, and after due consideration of the arguments made at
the hearing by the parties and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find that
Sullivan, Long & Hagerty is, and has been at all times mate-
rial, an Alabama corporation with an office and place of
business located at West Jefferson, Alabama, where it is en-
gaged in construction services and that during the calendar
year preceding the filing of the complaint, Respondent Sulli-
van, Long & Hagerty performed services valued in excess of
1008 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$50,000 for customers located within the State of Alabama,
who in turn during the same period of time purchased and
received at their Alabama locations goods valued in excess
of $50,000 direct from suppliers located outside the State of
Alabama and that Sullivan, Long & Hagerty is, and has been
at all times material, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find that
at all times material, the Union is, and has been a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Layoffs
The Miller Steam plant is a major electric power plant
near West Jefferson, Alabama, which is owned by Alabama
Power Company (APCO) and has been under construction
since the mid-1970s. SL&H has for many years been the
prime labor contractor for APCO and has the responsibility
for manning and supervising the construction of the four gen-
erating units which make up the Miller Steam plant. Man-
power levels are controlled by APCO and SL&H utilizes var-
ious construction craft unions to meet the construction man-
power level needs and SL&H has employed and supervised
over 1000 employees from over 15 craft unions in meeting
this responsibility.
Billy Blazer has been a member of the Union for 14 years
and had been referred to SL&H by the Union and worked
for SL&H at the Miller Steam plant on several occasions. In
August 1986, Blazer was referred to SL&H at the Miller
Steam plant as a high rigger. In December 1987, Blazer was
transferred from his position as a high rigger to the position
of welder helper. In June and July 1987, SL&H laid off sev-
eral employees in three separate layoffs occurring on June
24, July 1 and 6, 1988. The General Counsel contends cer-
tain of the employees laid off on June 24, on July 1 in addi-
tion to Blazer who was also laid off on that date, and on July
22 were supporters of Blazer in his intraunion political ri-
valry with the incumbent officers and delegates of the Union
whom Blazer had opposed in the past. The General Counsel
contends that the layoffs of Blazer and his supporters were
politically motivated as a result of Blazer’s engagement in
internal union politics and the Union’s current leadership’s
retaliation against them and were thus violative of the Act.
Blazer was politically active in Local Lodge 108 and had
held several positions including president, delegate, and alter-
nate delegate to the District Convention. There are four
locals in the Gulf Coast District and each local sends two
delegates to the District Convention. The delegates select the
Gulf Coast District business agent who appoints an assistant
business agent for each of the locals. In the spring 1988,
Blazer and member Joe Ballard ran for a delegate position
to the District Convention. John Bagley and Assistant Busi-
ness Agent for Local Lodge 108 Jimmy Dickinson ran on a
slate for the delegate positions and campaigned for the in-
cumbent District Coast Business Manager Harold Creel
whereas Blazer and Ballard did not support Creel.
Blazer had previously filed a complaint with the Depart-
ment of Labor over the results of an election for president
which he had lost. This complaint was dismissed by the De-
partment of Labor when the Union agreed to hold a second
election which Blazer also lost. Additionally Blazer pre-
viously had filed charges against Dickinson with the Inter-
national Union alleging that Dickinson had conducted an ille-
gal gambling operation at Local 108 offices. Dickinson sub-
sequently filed charges against Blazer with the International
Union alleging that the charges filed by Blazer against him
were politically motivated and calculated to and had the ef-
fect of costing Dickinson his then-current campaign for elec-
tion of secretary-treasurer which he lost. Both charges were
dismissed by the International.
The Union operates an exclusive hiring hall and furnishes
SL&H with employees from among its members. SL&H, as
the prime contractor has the responsibility for building the
precipitator and condenser at the Miller plant. APCO deter-
mines the number of employees then currently needed among
the various crafts utilized by SL&H to perform under its con-
struction contract to build the power plant equipment de-
scribed above and SL&H makes the selection of employees
referred to it by the Union or specifically called for by it
from the Union. Layoffs are common as jobs near comple-
tion. Alabama Power declares the need for a layoff and
SL&H decides which particular employees will be laid off in
heavy reliance on the general foreman or area foreman and
various crew foremen all of whom are also members of the
Union. Typically the general or area foreman asks the fore-
men of the individual crews to rank their men with the best
employee ranked first while the lowest rated employee is
ranked last. The general foreman then reviews these lists and
he and the SL&H representative (assistant superintendent)
confer and a list is developed by the general foreman and ap-
proved by the SL&H representative.
As noted above Blazer had most recently been referred to
the Miller Steam plant job for SL&H by the Union in August
1988 as a high rigger. In December 1988, Business Manager
Jimmy Dickinson sent member Ted Garrard as a union stew-
ard. According to the testimony of Blazer, which I credit
over Garrard’s denial, Garrard approached Blazer and told
him that he was sent there to protect Dickinson’s interest,
that Blazer had been ‘‘bad-mouthing’’ Dickinson, that he
(Garrard) was a Viet Nam veteran, and that if Blazer didn’t
like it, he could step off the plant premises and they would
settle any differences. Garrard also told Blazer that he under-
stood that Blazer campaigned on the job and that if he were
caught campaigning he would be fired. In January 1988, the
crew that Blazer was working on was disbanded and Blazer
was sent to another crew to work as a welder’s helper with
no loss in pay. According to Blazer’s testimony which I
credit over Garrard’s denial thereof, Garrard approached him
in January 1989 and called him down from the high rigging
work he was doing and told him he was being reassigned to
the welding crew and when Blazer began to protest, Garrard
told Blazer that if he didn’t like it he could leave. Addition-
ally the Union’s assistant business manager, Jimmy Dickin-
son, wrote a letter to the Union Local’s membership dated
March 26, 1988, concerning his and member Johnny
Bagley’s election campaign for ‘‘delegates to the Gulf Coast
District Lodge and as delegates to re-elect Harold M. Creel,
Gulf Coast District Business Manager.’’ In this letter in re-
ferring to Billy Blazer and Joe Ballard, both of whom were
also running for the position of delegates to the convention,
Dickinson stated,
1009SULLIVAN, LONG & HAGERTY
These men all worked at 100% full pay from the first
day worked, and was on the ‘‘Primary’’ or ‘‘A’’ Out-
of-Work List, but are the first to yell about some Train-
ees, or other sub-journeymen. They say we need a
change, but in truth they need a change from Miller
Steam Plant, West Jefferson, Alabama. They need to
come out on a few outages for 3 or 4 years, and see
how the rest of the Local lives.
On several occasions in the spring of 1988, General Fore-
man Kenneth Jinright told Blazer and other members of the
Union that Area Foreman James Bates and the Union’s lead-
ership were watching Blazer and his supporters and wanted
to get rid of them. Additionally, members Gerald Teat and
Denford Harper testified concerning remarks made by Union
Steward Ted Garrard concerning Blazer while riding to work
together, in the spring of 1988, during the campaign for dele-
gates. Teat testified that Garrard stated on the way to work
in reference to Blazer ‘‘That redhead, if he passed another
letter, then he would be gone.’’ Teat also testified that
Garrard referred to Blazer as an agitator. Denford Harper tes-
tified Garrard stated in April 1988 while riding to work with
Harper and Teat that ‘‘Blazer was scheduled to be laid off
in the next layoff, and it would give him a lot of pleasure
to walk up to him and tell him that.’’ Member Hugh Gaines
testified that in late June 1988, he inquired of Union Steward
Garrard as to who would be on the next layoff and that
Garrard responded that he did not know as Dickinson’s step-
son, Tony Graham, had not brought the list out to the jobsite
from Dickinson. I credit both Teat’s and D. Harper’s testi-
mony over Garrard’s denial. Members John Mason and Hugh
Gaines also testified that in July 1988, when Mason inquired
of Garrard as to who made up the layoff list, Garrard replied
‘‘Jimmy Dickinson, Jimmy Bates, and Kenneth Jinright.’’ I
credit Mason’s and Gaines’ testimonies over that of Garrard
who denied making these statements. Additionally Jinright
testified that on several occasions Garrard spoke disparag-
ingly of Blazer at foremen meetings which he had been per-
mitted to attend although normally the union steward was not
permitted to attend such meetings and that Garrard stated that
Blazer was ‘‘politicking’’ on the job which Blazer’s foreman,
Ron Harding, denied in a heated exchange. Blazer also testi-
fied that he was warned by his foreman Ron Harding that
Garrard was watching him and had told him that Blazer was
politicking on the job which Harding had disputed. Harding
denied at the hearing that he had made these statements.
However I credit Blazer’s testimony that he did make these
statements and engaged in arguments with Garrard con-
cerning Blazer. I do not credit Harding’s denial nor that of
Garrard. Member Gerald Hargett testified he was told by
Jinright to stay away from Blazer as Blazer and his sup-
porters were being watched and that Area Foreman Bates
was out to get rid of the Blazer supporters. This case is con-
cerned with layoffs which occurred in June and July 1988.
The evidence shows that there were three layoffs ordered by
APCO in June and July and that during these layoffs both
Blazer and Dickinson supporters were laid off. Jinright testi-
fied that while there is no seniority provision in the contract,
seniority on the job is considered as a factor among others
such as the ranking and absenteeism in making up the final
layoff list and excused absences.
There is a dispute between the witnesses as to the identity
of several of the alleged discriminatees as Blazer supporters.
At the outset there was substantial evidence presented
through the testimony of Blazer, Jinright, and members
Mason and Gaines that the Blazer supporters were open in
their support of Blazer at the plant site and were generally
known. In addition to Blazer’s identification of the alleged
discriminatees as his supporters, John Mason who had sec-
onded Blazer’s nomination for delegate, also testified that the
discriminatees were Blazer supporters. He identified Hugh
Gaines, Denford Harper, Ricky Mayfield, Gordon Neeley,
Danny Romine, Lewis Stillwell, Randy Renninger, Ricky
Rutherford, Jim Stone, Euel Miller, and Wayne McCarty as
Blazer supporters but was unable to identify David Young or
Gerald Teat as Blazer supporters. Teat testified that he did
not discuss whom he supported with others. Teat, a long-
term employee on the job, testified he had a substantial
amount of absenteeism (about 2 weeks) as a result of a child
custody case but that Assistant Superintendent Ron Gartman
had told him not to worry about it as he (Teat) worked on
the job and Gartman knew what he was going through.
Jinright also testified that whereas they had normally looked
beyond the numbers of days absent in the past and consid-
ered the reason, this did not occur in Teat’s case although
Bates was aware of the reason for Teat’s absences and
Jinright regarded Teat’s absences as being justified under the
circumstances. Denford Harper testified he actively supported
Blazer and Ballard for delegates to the District convention
with other employees and his foreman. Denford Harper testi-
fied that Danny Romine was a Blazer supporter. Danny
Romine testified that he had seconded the nomination of
Blazer for president in Blazer’s race against Johnny Bagley
in 1987 and had told Blazer that he was supporting him in
Blazer’s campaign for delegate in 1988 although he did not
actively campaign for Blazer in 1988. After his layoff,
Romine discussed his layoff with Jinright who told him the
layoff came from higher up. Previously in early June Jinright
had observed Romine talking to Blazer and told him that ‘‘it
might be a good idea to stay away from Billy Blazer because
they’re watching him’’ or ‘‘they’re out to get him.’’ Romine
acknowledged having been a member of a crew that had
worked under Foreman Warren Misso and had been split up
with the crew divided among other foremen and that there
had been rumors that the split up of the crew was drug re-
lated and rumors that members of the crew had been smok-
ing marijuana. After his layoff he was referred back out to
SL&H for employment and was rehired after Dickinson
spoke on his behalf concerning the reasons his crew had
been split up. Romine testified that Gordon Neeley, David
Young, and Wayne McCarty were Blazer supporters. Ted
Garrard told him he was being laid off. Lewis E. Stillwell
testified that he spoke ‘‘with a lot of people concerning my
support for Mr. Blazer,’’ including union officers or stewards
and including delegate candidate Bagley and Steward
Garrard. He had been assigned to Misso’s crew until shortly
before his layoff when he was transferred to another crew.
Stillwell testified that David Young, and Wayne McCarty,
were Blazer supporters.
Jinright testified that during his employment with SL&H
he had never known of any problems with Blazer’s job per-
formance and that Blazer’s immediate foremen’s work re-
ports of Blazer were ‘‘always satisfactory.’’ Ronald Harding
1010 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was Blazer’s immediate foreman after Blazer was transferred
to his crew as a welding assistant. Jinright testified that on
one occasion Garrard complained to him about Blazer ‘‘poli-
ticking on the job’’ but before he (Jinright) could check into
it, Foreman Harding came into the office and he and Garrard
‘‘got into a heated discussion’’ about it and Harding told
Garrard to let him ‘‘do his foreman’s job’’ and that ‘‘Blazer
wasn’t politicking on the job.’’ Jinright identified Hugh
Gaines, Denford Harper, John Mason, Danny Romine, Lewis
Stillwell, Ricky Rutherford, Jim Stone, Gerald Teat, Euel
Miller, and Eddie Monk as open Blazer supporters in the
1988 delegate campaign who would ‘‘tell you about Blazer
and wanted you to vote for him.’’ He also identified William
Hargett and Ricky Rutherford as Blazer supporters.
Prior to the layoff of Blazer, Jinright talked to Joe Ballard,
Joe Cain, Gerald Hargett, Danny Romine, ‘‘several people on
the job’’ and ‘‘told them to stay away from Billy because
he was under the gun down there to be laid off.’’ He told
these employees that Jimmy Bates and Ted Garrard wanted
Blazer off the job and testified at the hearing that, ‘‘It was
very open.’’ Foreman Harding came to Jinright and told him
that Blazer ‘‘didn’t need to be laid off cause he was doing
his job.’’ Jinright had four or five conversations with Blazer
from the latter part of March through June in which he
warned him to stay on the job and ‘‘do not be politicking
because Ted [Garrard] and Jimmy [Bates] wanted him off the
job.’’ Garrard’s responsibility was ‘‘supposed to be pro-
tecting the people; not getting them laid off.’’ Jinright over-
heard a conversation in June prior to the layoff between John
Mason and Ted Garrard wherein Mason asked Garrard who
was going to be on the layoff and Garrard said he didn’t
know as he had not yet received the list from Tony Graham
(Dickinson’s stepson). Jinright testified that although stew-
ards do not normally attend foremen meetings, he observed
Garrard ‘‘sitting in on every one that he was there, I reckon,
until he was asked to leave’’ by ‘‘the Power Company peo-
ple’’ because he brought up Blazer’s name and every time
he did, he and Foreman Harding ‘‘would get into a heated
discussion.’’ Garrard would say that ‘‘Blazer was out poli-
ticking again.’’ Jinright further testified that Area Foreman
Bates prohibited all union ‘‘politicking’’ on the jobsite.
Jinright testified he made the decision to lay off Euel Mil-
ler because of absenteeism and his work record and that
Wayne McCarty’s absenteeism was a factor in his layoff.
Jinright testified that although Gerald Teat had accumulated
some absenteeism, Teat had talked to Bates and Jinright
about it and that they were aware of his involvement in a
child custody case which required him to travel to Florida
and that this was regarded as an excused absence. Jinright
also testified that when Bates took over as area foreman he
told Jinright that he was going to make the decisions to hire
and fire and that, whereas prior to Bates assuming the role
of area foreman, he (Jinright) had obtained a ranking of each
crew from the foremen and made the selection based on the
ranking in conjunction with any other information he had re-
garding absenteeism or job performance, this procedure
changed after Bates took over. Thereafter, Bates had his own
list of employees to be laid off and told Jinright whose
names to put on the layoff list. Jinright would then fill in
the rest of the names to reach the designated number of em-
ployees to be laid off. In all cases the number of employees
to be laid off was set by APCO. Jinright testified that with
regard to the June 2 layoff, Richard (Ricky) McCarty was
laid off because of absenteeism and that he agreed with this
as McCarty had a bad record. Jinright does not recall any
discussion about Gordon Neeley but acknowledged he had
been a member of the Misso crew which had been suspected
of smoking marijuana. He testified that Assistant Super-
intendent Gartman said to get rid of him because he was a
troublemaker in reference to the suspected drug usage. Rich-
ard Rutherford had been a foreman who was put back to
welding as part of a crew in the condenser and was not
working for him at the time and Jinright had no input into
his layoff and does not recall any discussion about him.
Lewis Stillwell had worked in the crew led by Foreman
Misso that was split up shortly before this layoff. Jinright
had split the crew up because APCO wanted employees
‘‘hanging’’ so Jinright split up Musso’s crew and established
a ‘‘hanging’’ crew to do this work. David Young was not
working for Jinright at the time of this layoff and Jinright
did not recall any discussion of Young at this time when he
was put on the layoff list.
With respect to the layoff of July 1, 1988, Jinright testified
Euel Miller was laid off because of work-related problems
and he had input into Miller’s selection for layoff during the
meeting with Bates and Gartman to select employees for this
layoff. Bates also said Miller should be laid off because of
his work record. Billy Burton’s name was brought up by
Gartman and when Jinright inquired as to whom he meant,
Bates said he means Billy Blazer and Blazer’s name was put
on the layoff list. Prior to this, Union Steward Garrard had
stated he wanted Blazer laid off. Bates also had said Blazer
was ‘‘politicking on the job.’’ Bates had earlier stated at a
safety meeting that anyone caught ‘‘politicking’’ on the job
will be fired. However, when Union Steward Garrard was
caught with Dickinson stickers on his hat he was not dis-
charged but rather reprimanded by Bates who had him take
the sticker off. He believes that Ricky Mayfield was laid off
on July 1 because he was an apprentice as since there was
a layoff of journeymen, it was necessary to lay off an ap-
prentice. Randy Renninger’s name was put on the layoff list
by Bates because he was one of the last employees hired in
and Jinright did not disagree with this because although se-
niority is not a part of the labor agreement, it is normally
accorded some weight.
On the layoff of July 8 the first name on the list was Joe
Ballard whose name was given to Jinright by Bates. Jinright
testified that Ballard was a wire gun welder and APCO was
putting welders on the job. Jinright asked Bates why he was
laying Ballard off and Bates said ‘‘I want him off the job.’’
The name of Hugh Gaines was also given to Jinright by
Bates who told Jinright ‘‘to get him off the job.’’
On the July 22 layoff Bates gave Jinright the name of
Denford Harper but there was no other discussion concerning
the reason for the inclusion of his name on the list. Harper’s
foreman Steve Speed was upset when he found out that
Harper was on the layoff list as he needed him in his crew.
Bates also gave Jinright the name of John Mason and con-
tended that Mason was a troublemaker and stayed out of his
work area. Jinright sometimes observed Mason out of his
work area but his foreman Ron Harding supported Mason as
doing his work and contended he had no complaint if Mason
went to the restroom or got a drink of water when he was
out of his work area. Bates put the name of Edward E. Monk
1011SULLIVAN, LONG & HAGERTY
on the layoff list and contended he did so for absenteeism.
However, Jinright testified that Monk had had a lot of deaths
in the family and relatives in the hospital and brought in ex-
cuses and Jinright regarded these as excused absences. Bates
went by APCO’s absenteeism records but Bates was aware
of the reasons for the absences in Monk’s case. Gartman had
little or no input into the layoff decisions on most occasions.
Jinright testified that Danny Romine’s name was given to
him by Gartman as having been in the crew with suspected
drug usage. When Jinright spoke on Romine’s behalf,
Gartman said he (Romine) was in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Bates did not say anything about Romine. The
name of James Stone, an apprentice, also appears on the lay-
off list. Stone and Bates had had an argument previously and
Bates gave Jinright Stone’s name. Gerald Teat’s name also
appears on the layoff list by Bates and his absenteeism was
discussed although Jinright felt he had a valid excuse be-
cause of his involvement in a child custody case. Jinright
heard Garrard and Bates discussing a layoff a month or two
before Teat and Denford Harper were laid off and Garrard
said that it would be nice if Teat and Harper were laid off
because they were Blazer supporters and troublemakers.
Jinright testified that Teat and Harper were not trouble-
makers and their foremen spoke well of them and Jinright
had personally observed their work. Jinright also testified
that prior to the layoff of Blazer, Bates told him, ‘‘We need
to get rid of Blazer because he’s downtown trying to get
your job too, Kenneth.’’ Bates also said that Blazer was pay-
ing Jinright to stay on the job which Jinright denies.
Jinright testified that according to his paperwork and that
of the civil office they were ahead of schedule in August
1988 on the precipitator for which he had responsibility. On
June 24, 1988, they were keeping up with the schedule.
Garrard came to Jinright personally and said they needed to
get rid of Blazer. Bates did say that troublemakers were peo-
ple with high absenteeism and people who were standing
around talking. Jinright agreed with the number of people
laid off but did not agree with the timing of the layoffs.
Jinright’s affidavit states that he advised Gerald Hargett,
John Mason, and Jim Stone to be careful and stay in their
own work area. Gartman and Bates had told him the three
above employees were troublemakers and he does not recall
what it was about them that Gartman and Bates said made
them troublemakers. They did not say anything about Blazer
when they told him but his name was coming up often. He
is now sure that he told other boilermakers to stay away
from Blazer. He never asked Blazer about Bates’ statement
that Blazer was out to get his job.
Assistant Business Manager Dickinson identified Blazer,
Hugh Gaines, Denford Harper, John Mason, Lewis Stillwell,
James Stone, Gerald Teat, and Edward Monk as Blazer sup-
porters in his affidavit. He made no notation by David
Young or Randy Renninger in his affidavit. He doesn’t know
about Wayne McCarty but felt Romine might vote one for
him and one for Blazer in the delegate race as Romine had
told him this. Joe Ballard has run against both Dickinson and
Blazer. He felt that Ricky Mayfield and Gordon Neeley sup-
ported him (Dickinson). Euel Miller and he are good long-
time friends. Ricky Rutherford has always talked negatively
of Blazer and positively of Dickinson. After complaints con-
cerning the layoffs by Ballard, Blazer, and Mason and the
filing of a grievance by Blazer, Dickinson talked to the fore-
men who said they made a list of their men (best to last)
and gave it to Jinright. He also talked to Jinright and Bates
who both said Jinright made the layoff. Dickinson testified
he has never said anything to a general or area foreman or
had any input into a layoff except where another employer
wanted a man as a foreman or a man had personal problems
and requested a layoff. Jinright told him he had made up the
layoff list and put Blazer on the list and that no one else had
anything to do with it.
Garrard testified he has been in and out of the office and
Bates would tell Jinright the number of men to lay off and
Jinright would make up the list and hand it to Bates who
would turn it into the office and give it to Garrard. He testi-
fied he never made recommendations for layoff except that
the out of towners be laid off first. Similarly Bates and
Gartman contended that Jinright had made the layoffs.
Gartman testified he told Bates and Jinright to lay off the
members of the Misso crew suspected of drug use.
Analysis
I find the General Counsel has made a prima facie case
that the layoffs of Blazer and his supporters in June and July
1988 were based in part on their engagement in internal
union politics which are clearly protected concerted activities
under the Act. I find that the animus toward Blazer and his
supporters has been established. I credit Blazer concerning
the hostile manner in which he was initially greeted by
Garrard when Garrard was appointed as a union steward and
that Garrard told him he was there to protect Assistant Busi-
ness Agent Jimmy Dickinson’s interest and that he chal-
lenged Blazer to step off the property at the time to settle
their differences. I also credit the testimony of Teat and
Harper concerning the threats of discharge of Blazer issued
by Garrard to them. I also find that Dickinson’s statement in
his campaign letter that his opponents, Joe Ballard and Billy
Blazer in the delegate election need to come out on a few
outages for a few years to see how the other half of the local
lives was a clear threat of reprisal by removing them from
the Miller Steam Power Plant job. I also credit Romine who
testified that General Foreman Jinright had told him to stay
away from Blazer as Blazer supporters would go any day
and I credit Jinright that Garrard, as a union steward, was
allowed to attend foremen’s meetings where he disrupted the
meetings by calling for the layoff of Blazer prompting an
angry response from foreman Harding who defended Blazer.
I also credit Jinright’s testimony that Area Foreman Bates
made adverse comments about Blazer’s ‘‘politicking’’ on the
job although Jinright had not observed any specific instances
of it. I also credit employees Mason’s and Gaines’ testimony
that Garrard told them that Dickinson’s stepson had not yet
brought out the list of men to be laid off and that the layoffs
were made by Dickinson, Bates, and Jinright. I also find sig-
nificant Dickinson’s denial at the hearing of his close rela-
tionship with Area Foreman Bates whereas in his affidavit he
acknowledged that he and Bates are close personal friends
and do not credit Dickinson’s denial of this friendship at the
hearing. I also credit Jinright’s testimony that at the time of
the layoffs Bates basically made the decision and that
Jinright merely copied down what Bates dictated. I also cred-
it Jinright’s testimony that Assistant Plant Superintendent
Ron Gartman called out the name of Billy Burton and Bates
said no he means Billy Blazer.
1012 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All the above establishes a prima facie case that the layoff
of Blazer and his supporters were motivated by the union
leadership’s desire to retaliate against Blazer and his sup-
porters for their engagement in internal union politics and
were caused by Dickinson and carried out by SL&H’s area
foreman Bates, a fellow union member and close friend of
Dickinson’s, and were acquiesced in and carried out by As-
sistant Superintendent Ron Gartman both of whom were
agents of SL&H.
In making credibility determinations, I have considered the
detailed testimony of several of the witnesses called by the
General Counsel concerning the various statements attributed
to Garrard by them and found this testimony, convincing and
credible. I also considered the testimony of Jinright and
found him to be a credible witness. Although I recognize that
he was terminated as a general foreman by SL&H and was
not a current dues paying member of the Union at the time
of the hearing and that he had in the past owed Blazer
money in the sum of $200 borrowed as the result of a family
emergency and, at the time of the hearing, owed Blazer $50,
I did not find these matters to affect his credibility. In my
observation of Jinright on the stand I noted no evidence of
hostility on the part of Jinright to either of the Respondents.
Rather I found Jinright to be a low key witness who testified
in a forthright manner and did not attempt to embellish his
testimony but willingly conceded matters brought out on
cross-examination that may have been adverse to the General
Counsel’s case. I am thus convinced that Jinright was in all
respects a truthful witness.
In making a determination as to the unlawful motivation
of Union Assistant Business Agent Dickinson in suppressing
opposition, it appears to the undersigned and I infer from
Blazer’s credited testimony concerning Garrard’s initial ap-
proach to him on Garrard’s arrival at the jobsite as a steward
on behalf of the Union who was there to protect Dickinson’s
interest and from Dickinson’s letter to the membership
wherein he specifically mentioned Blazer and Ballard as his
opposition at the power plant construction site, and from
Jinright’s testimony concerning the openess of the support
for Blazer that this site was perceived by Dickinson and his
supporters as a hotbed of opposition with substantial support
for Blazer and Ballard. Although I credit the testimony of
Gartman that the precipitator was regarded as a problem area
with attendance and production problems, it is also clear that
the ‘‘politicking’’ curtailed by Bates in the safety meeting
appeared primarily to relate to ‘‘politicking’’ by candidates
who opposed Dickinson and his supporters. Thus, the initial
directive of Bates to refrain from ‘‘politicking’’ on the job
under fear of discharge appeared to lose resolve when
Garrard wore a sticker on his hard hat in support of Dickin-
son. While it may well be that Bates was not active politi-
cally within the Union’s internal political circle, I do find
that he and Dickinson are close personal friends and that the
facts and circumstances in this case give rise to a reasonable
inference that Bates was swayed to aid in the suppression of
opposition to Dickinson by selecting known or perceived
Blazer supporters for layoff. I also find that although
Gartman may have had no interest in the Union’s internal
politics, he acceded to the recommendations of Bates who,
as an agent of Respondent SL&H, developed his own list for
layoff based on discriminatory motives in retaliation for op-
position to Dickinson and his supporters. I also credit the tes-
timony of Union Steward Donald Patterson that in October
1988 in the craft foreman’s office, he overheard Bates say
in the presence of Dickinson that he would wait until later
to put in a call for additional employees for the condenser
as Blazer’s name was on the top of the out-of-work list, as
Blazer might go elsewhere because other jobs were breaking.
I also credit the testimony of Jinright that a month or two
prior to the layoff of Harper and Teat he heard Garrard tell
Bates that it would be nice if Harper and Teat were ‘‘gone’’
because they were Blazer supporters. All the foregoing con-
vinces me that the ‘‘politicking’’ referred to by Garrard and
Bates was largely, if not exclusively, concerned with ‘‘poli-
ticking’’ on behalf of supporters of opposition to Dickinson
and Bagley for the delegate election.
With respect to the various defenses raised by the Re-
spondents I find that certain of them have merit. I find based
on Jinright’s testimony that Euel Miller was laid off because
of his attendance and that Wayne McCarty was laid off be-
cause of his attendance and work record and that James
Stone and Richard Mayfield were laid off because of their
status as apprentices which dictated their layoff prior to that
of journeymen. I also credit the testimony of Assistant Plant
Superintendent Gartman, as supported by Jinright, Bates, and
Dickinson, that he had given orders that all former members
of Foreman Misso’s crew should be laid off because of sus-
pected drug usage by the crew and that Danny Romine,
Lewis Stillwell, and Gordon Neeley would have been laid off
even in the absence of their protected activities. I also credit
Jinright that Randy Renninger was laid off because he had
been one of the last employees hired. I also find that the evi-
dence of Mayfield’s support of Blazer in the election has
been rebutted by Mayfield’s own testimony that he did not
campaign for anyone in the delegate election, did not express
to Blazer or Dickinson or anyone his preference for any can-
didate in the delegate election, and does not believe that
union politics played any role in his layoff. I also credit
Stone’s testimony that he was not a supporter of Blazer and
note that he does not believe his layoff was the result of his
participation in internal union politics. I find, however, that
the remaining defenses with respect to the other
discriminatees raised by the Respondents have failed to es-
tablish that these layoffs would have occurred in the absence
of the unlawful motive.
I accordingly find that the Respondent Union and the Re-
spondent SL&H have failed to rebut the prima facie case es-
tablished by the General Counsel by the preponderance of
the evidence except as set out above and have failed to per-
suasively demonstrate that Blazer and his supporters would
have been laid off in the absence of their protected internal
union activities in the delegate election campaign. Roure
Bertrand Dupont, Inc., 271 NLRB 443 (1984); NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983);
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981).
B. The Refusal to Rehire Blazer
The complaint also alleges that SL&H violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by its refusal to rehire Blazer on October
24, 1988. When Blazer was laid off on July 1, 1988, he re-
ceived a separation notice that stated that he would be con-
sidered for rehire. Blazer subsequently heard a rumor that he
would not be rehired and contacted SL&H General Super-
1013SULLIVAN, LONG & HAGERTY
intendent Charles Browning and wrote him and the Union on
the same date inquiring whether this was true. Browning told
him he was not aware of any ‘‘not for rehire’’ status of Blaz-
er. On checking Browning testified he learned that there was
a note at the guard gate to the construction entrance that
Blazer should not be let in which had been put there at the
direction of Assistant Plant Superintendent Ron Gartman
shortly after Blazer’s layoff when Gartman heard that Blazer
was coming out to the plant site to see Gartman to protest
his layoff and that Gartman had put the note at the guard-
house as he was busy and unable to see Blazer but had ne-
glected to remove it.
Browning further testified that when he received Blazer’s
September 8, 1988 letter inquiring of his rehire status with
a copy to Blazer’s attorney, he began to inquire about Blazer.
Browning testified he learned that Blazer had been involved
in a wildcat strike at Reynold’s Aluminum in the early 1970s
and the men had lost a lot of time, that Blazer had passed
out union campaign literature to other employees at Babcock
and Wilcox, another construction contractor, and that he
learned from Area Foreman Bates that Blazer had carried a
tape recorder on the jobsite. He also testified that the current
general foreman over the precipitator told him that his men
did not want Blazer back on the job as he was disruptive.
He further testified that Blazer had called Alabama Power
Manager Bob Willshire at home several years ago and had
asked that Willshire put him on the job although such selec-
tion is normally made by SL&H after referral by the Union.
Blazer initially denied knowing Willshire at the hearing but
subsequently admitted knowing him after Willshire testified
about this incident. Browning testified that he accordingly
decided he did not need any more trouble on the job and he
refused to rehire Blazer when he was referred out again by
the Union in October 1988 and assigned as the reason there-
for Blazer’s work habits and his attitude on the job. It is un-
disputed that although Blazer had worked at the Miller plant
site for several years and for SL&H on several occasions, he
had never been disciplined in any way by SL&H.
Analysis
I find that the General Counsel has established a prima
facie case that Respondent SL&H refused to rehire Blazer
because of his engagement in protected concerted activities.
Initially I find that the refusal to rehire is inextricably inter-
twined with SL&H’s unlawful layoff of Blazer in July and
his efforts to ensure that he was not barred from further em-
ployment particularly in light of his having been listed at the
guard gate as having been barred from the construction prop-
erty. Moreover it is clear that the reasons relied on by
Browning at the hearing demonstrate that Browning refused
to rehire Blazer because of his union activities including the
alleged ‘‘wildcat strike,’’ the passing out of union literature,
the carrying of a tape recorder on the jobsite which Blazer
testified he did in connection with a Department of Labor in-
vestigation into union election irregularities. There was no
evidence presented by the Respondent that any of these ac-
tivities of Blazer were in fact unprotected or violated any of
Respondent’s valid policies or that Blazer had ever been dis-
ciplined for them. Rather, it is clear that Browning viewed
these activities with disdain and chose not to rehire Blazer
because of them and assigned as the reason therefor a vague
assertion that Blazer was not being rehired because of his at-
titude and work practices on the job.
As the General Counsel notes in his brief, a concerted
work stoppage for the purpose of protesting undesirable
working conditions is protected activity under Section 7 of
the Act, citing NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S.
9 (1962). See also Betts Baking Co. v. NLRB, 380 F.2d 199
(10th Cir. 1967). Thus, under all the circumstances I find
that the Respondent SL&H has failed to rebut the prima facie
case of a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Wright
Line, supra; Roure Bertrand, supra; NLRB v. Transportation
Management, supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Boilermakers Local Lodge 108 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Boilermakers Local Lodge 108 violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by attempting to and
causing Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty to lay off em-
ployee Billy Blazer and his supporters Joseph Ballard, Hugh
Gaines, Denford Harper, John Mason, Ricky Rutherford,
Gerald Teat, Eddie Monk, and David Young.
4. Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by laying off the employees named
above.
5. Respondents did not violate the Act by the layoff of
employees Danny Romine, Lewis E. Stillwell, Gordon
Neeley, Euel Miller, Ricky Mayfield, Randy Renninger,
James Stone, and Wayne McCarty.
6. Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by refusing to rehire Blazer because of his
engagement in protected concerted activity under Section 7
of the Act.
7. The above unfair labor practices have the effect of bur-
dening commence within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated the Act,
they shall be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to
take certain affirmative actions, including the posting of an
appropriate notice, designed to effectuate the purposes of the
Act. Respondent Boilermakers Local Lodge 108 shall inform
the Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty in writing that it
is not requesting the layoff of Billy Blazer and his supporters
and send a copy of such letter to each of the aforesaid em-
ployees, and notify each of them in writing that their pro-
tected concerted internal union activities will not be used
against them in any manner. Respondent Sullivan, Long &
Hagerty shall be ordered to rescind the unlawful layoffs and
the ‘‘not for rehire’’ order with respect to employee Billy
Blazer and to offer Billy Blazer employment to the position
to which he was referred in October 1988 or to a substan-
tially equivalent position if that position no longer exists and
expunge its files of the layoff notices to the employees and
the unlawful ‘‘not for rehire’’ order against Billy Blazer and
advise the employees in writing that this has been done and
inform Blazer that the unlawful ‘‘not for rehire’’ order will
not be used against him in the future. The other
1014 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the ‘‘short-term Federal rate’’
for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C.
§ 6621.
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals,
the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’ 4 See fn. 3.
discriminatees shall also be restored to their former positions
if they exist or to substantially equivalent ones if they exist
and shall be advised in writing thereof that their unlawful
layoffs will not be used against them in any manner. Blazer
and each of the employees found to have been discriminated
against shall be made whole jointly and severally by the Re-
spondents for any loss of wages or benefits sustained by
them as a result of their unlawful layoffs. Blazer shall be
made whole for any loss of wages or benefits by Respondent
Sullivan, Long & Hagerty as a result of the unlawful refusal
to rehire Blazer in October 1988. Backpay and benefits shall
be with interest, as computed in the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987).1
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
A. Respondent Boilermakers Local Lodge 108, Midfield,
Alabama, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Attempting to cause and causing the layoff of Billy
Blazer and his supporters because of their engagement in in-
ternal union politics or other protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Inform the Respondent, Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, in
writing that it is not requesting the layoff of employee Billy
Blazer and his supporters and send a copy of this letter to
each of the aforesaid unlawfully laid-off employees and no-
tify each of the above discriminatees in writing that their en-
gagement in internal union politics and other protected con-
certed activities will not be used against them in any manner.
(b) Make whole jointly and severally with Respondent
Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, its members Billy Blazer, Joseph
Ballard, Hugh Gaines, Denford Harper, John Mason, Ricky
Rutherford, Gerald Teat, Eddie Monk, and David Young for
all wages and benefits sustained by them with interest in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all referral records
and other records necessary to analyze the amount of back-
pay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its business office and meeting places copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix A.’’3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 10, after being duly signed by Respondent Union’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent Union
at its business office immediately upon receipt and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
Union to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this order what steps it has taken to comply.
B. Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, West Jefferson,
Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Laying off its employees because of their engagement
in internal union politics or other protected concerted activi-
ties.
(b) Refusing to hire employees because of their engage-
ment in internal union politics or other protected concerted
activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind its unlawful layoff of employees Billy Blazer,
Joseph Ballard, Hugh Gaines, Denford Harper, John Mason,
Ricky Rutherford, Gerald Teat, Eddie Monk, and David
Young and offer them full reinstatement to their former posi-
tions or to substantially equivalent positions if they exist and
jointly and severally with Respondent Boilermakers Local
Lodge 108 make them whole for all loss of wages and bene-
fits sustained by them, with interest, as set out in the remedy.
(b) Offer to hire Billy Blazer to the position for which he
was referred to said Respondent Sullivan, Long & Hagerty
by the Respondent Union in October 1988, or to a substan-
tially equivalent position if this position no longer exists, and
make him whole for all loss of wages and benefits sustained
by him with interest as set out in the remedy.
(c) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
layoffs of the discriminatees above and to the unlawful re-
fusal to hire Billy Blazer and inform each of them respec-
tively in writing that this has been done and that the unlaw-
ful layoffs and in the case of Billy Blazer, also the unlawful
refusal to hire will not be used against them in any manner.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all 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 Order.
(e) Post at its facility in West Jefferson, Alabama, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix B.’’4 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 10, after being signed by Respondent Sullivan, Long &
Hagerty’s authorized representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
1015SULLIVAN, LONG & HAGERTY
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause or cause the layoffs of our
members because of their engagement in internal union poli-
tics or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or co-
erce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL inform Sullivan, Long & Hagerty that we are not
requesting the layoff of employee Billy Blazer and his sup-
porters named hereunder and will send a copy of this letter
to each of the unlawfully laid-off employees and will notify
each of them in writing that their engagement in internal
union politics and other protected concerted activities will
not be used against them in any manner.
WE WILL make whole jointly and severally with Sullivan,
Long & Hagerty members Billy Blazer, Joseph Ballard,
Hugh Gaines, Denford Harper, John Mason, Ricky Ruther-
ford, Gerald Teat, Eddie Monk, and David Young for all loss
of wages and benefits sustained by them with interest and
will notify each of them in writing of this and that their en-
gagement in internal union politics or other protected con-
certed activities will not be used against them in any manner.
BOILERMAKERS LOCAL LODGE 108
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT lay off or refuse to hire employees because
of their engagement in internal union politics or other pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind our unlawful layoff of employees Billy
Blazer, Joseph Ballard, Hugh Gaines, Denford Harper, John
Mason, Ricky Rutherford, Gerald Teat, Eddie Monk, and
David Young and offer them full reinstatement to their
former positions if they still exist or to substantially equiva-
lent ones if they exist and will make them whole jointly and
severally with Boilermakers Local Lodge 108 for all loss of
wages and benefits sustained by them by reason of the un-
lawful layoffs, with interest.
WE WILL offer to hire Billy Blazer to the position for
which he was referred to us in October 1988, or to a sub-
stantially equivalent position if this position no longer exists,
and will make him whole for all loss of wages and benefits
sustained by him as a result of our unlawful refusal to hire
him with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any references to the un-
lawful layoffs of the employees above and the unlawful re-
fusal to rehire Billy Blazer in October 1988, and will inform
each of them, respectively, in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful layoffs and, in the case of Billy Blazer
also the unlawful refusal to rehire, will not be used against
them in any manner because of their engagement in internal
union politics or other protected concerted activities.
SULLIVAN, LONG & HAGERTY