Thermon Heat Tracing Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1996

320 N.L.R.B. 1035 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

1035
320 NLRB No. 131
THERMON HEAT TRACING SERVICES
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
The Respondent argued that employees Joe Duhon, Jason Carr,
Ken Tyson, Randy Garner, and Rodney Bernard were not included
in a stipulation listing the names of those employees who were en-
gaging in union activity during their lunchbreaks. Although the stip-
ulation does not include these names, the record establishes that they
were former strikers who engaged in union activity, that the Re-
spondent was aware of this, and that the Respondent issued warnings
to them and discharged them because of that activity.
The Respondent also contends that, in any event, the employment
of the discriminatees would have come to an end at the conclusion
of the project on which they were working. In accordance with the
Board’s policy expressed in Dean General Contractors, 285 NLRB
573 (1987), we agree with the judge that the Respondent is to be
afforded an opportunity at compliance to limit its remedial obliga-
tions by showing that none of the unlawfully discharged employees
would have been transferred to other projects.
We note that the judge’s decision contains an inconsistency in the
dates employees were issued warning notices. The correct dates ap-
pear in sec. B of his decision. 1 All dates are in 1994 unless otherwise indicated.
Thermon Heat Tracing Services, Inc. and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 479. Case 16–CA–16842
March 26, 1996
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
On October 6, 1995, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a reply
brief, and a brief in support of the judge’s decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s ruling, findings,1 and con-
clusions 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 the Respondent, Thermon Heat Tracing
Services, Inc., Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order.
Robert G. Levy, II and Nadin Littles, Esqs., for the General
Counsel.
Charles E. Sykes, Esq. (Bruckner & Sykes), of Houston,
Texas, for the Respondent.
Larry Moore, Esq., of Beaumont, Texas, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard in Port Arthur, Texas, on July 25 and 26,
1995. The Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 479 filed the original charge on July 12,
1994,1 and an amended charge on March 24, 1995. The com-
plaint, issued on March 30, 1995, alleges that the Respond-
ent, Thermon Heat Tracing Services, Inc. (Thermon) violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by writing, promulgating,
and enforcing the following rule selectively and disparately
against employees who supported Local 479:
In order to maintain a safe, continual and productive
work force it is necessary that all craft personnel re-
main in their assigned block areas.
This mandate will commence this date [March 12]
and shall include all breaks and on the job lunch peri-
ods.
By its timely answer and first amended answer to the com-
plaint, Thermon denied that it had engaged in the alleged un-
fair labor practices.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by counsel for the General Counsel and Thermon, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Thermon, a corporation, with an office and place of busi-
ness in Houston, Texas, engages in building and construc-
tion. In conducting its business during the 12 months ending
March 31, 1995, Thermon purchased and received at its
Houston, Texas facilities goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State
of Texas. Thermon admits and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
In 1993, Brown and Root Braun was the general contrac-
tor in the expansion of Texaco’s gasoline additive chemical
plant at Port Neches, Texas. In October 1993, Thermon be-
came a subcontractor to Brown and Root on the Texaco ex-
pansion project. Under its contract with Thermon, Brown and
Root had authority to designate the subcontractor’s work
areas, as well as parking, storage, and administrative areas.
Brown and Root employed Thermon to install an electrical
heat tracing system in the new construction. Thermon em-
ployed electricians, insulators, and helpers to perform this
work. At the peak of this project, in 1994, Brown and Root
1036 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 My findings of fact regarding Tyson’s request for permission to
leave his assigned work area are based on Superintendent Brook-
shire’s uncontradicted testimony.
had approximately 2500 of the 3000 employees on this site.
The remaining 500 were employees of subcontractors, in-
cluding Thermon. On March 2, 52 of Thermon’s 57 heat
tracing employees, including electricians and helpers, went
on strike at the Texaco expansion project.
On March 10, Brown and Root Braun issued the following
memorandum to its subcontractors at the Texaco expansion
project:
With the impending opening of B and C Streets into
the east plant as well as future early turnover of Blocks
58, it is requested that each Subcontractor require their
employees to remain in their designated work areas and
not travel around into other areas of the Project. These
particular areas are permit areas and require special
training to enter.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Frank Haught, Brown and Root’s subcontracts manager at
the Texaco site, issued the quoted memo to Thermon and the
other subcontractors in the interest of safety. I find from
Haught’s testimony that Brown and Root was about to turn
blocks 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the project over to Texaco for startup
and that hydrotesting and flushing of the pipe system in
those blocks was in progress. When asked if he had any
other reasons for issuing his memorandum, Haught testified:
No, it was just the point in time in the project where
we needed to kind of highlight what was going on and
reinforce the fact that everybody needed to stay in their
work areas, that you have got hazards throughout the
project, and we really wanted to focus on that at this
point in the project.
I find from Haught’s testimony that the strike by Thermon
employees did not motivate him to issue this memorandum.
I also have credited his uncontradicted denial that Thermon
suggested or otherwise influenced its issuance.
On March 12, Thermon’s safety director, Paul Wagstaff,
issued the following directive to ‘‘All T. H. T. S. Craft Per-
sonnel’’:
In order to maintain a safe, continual and productive
work force it is necessary that all craft personnel re-
main in their assigned block areas.
This mandate will commence this date and shall in-
clude all breaks and on the job lunch periods.
This program will assist foremen as to the where-
abouts of their employees should an emergency arise
now that Brown & Root Braun is beginning to utilize
corrosives with the flushing of pipelines.
We all should realize that additional changes may
occur as our project changes from a ‘‘grass root’’ job
to a gradual ‘‘live unit.’’
As always your continued support is appreciated.
Wagstaff did not promulgate his memorandum until he
had presented it to Brown and Root Braun’s safety director,
Jesse Fredeck, who approved it. Thermon issued Wagstaff’s
memorandum on March 12. On the following Monday,
March 14, Wagstaff discussed his memorandum with
Thermon’s nonstriking employees, at a general safety meet-
ing.
By letter dated March 17, the Union notified Thermon that
the strike was terminated and, on behalf of 48 strikers, made
an unconditional offer to return to work. For the most part,
the strikers returned to work at Thermon’s Texaco jobsite in
April. On their return, Wagstaff gave the former strikers a
safety orientation, which included his memorandum of March
12.
The common lunchbreak at the Texaco construction site
for Brown and Root’s employees and its subcontractors’ em-
ployees was from 12 to 12:30 p.m. I find, however, from the
uncontradicted testimony of Thermon’s witnesses, Doug
Brookshire and Frank Haught, that there was some work that
continued through the lunchbreaks.
Thermon’s interpretation of its restriction of employees to
assigned areas permitted an employee to visit another con-
struction site block during worktime or during a break, with
permission from his or her foreman, and if the foreman at
the other block knew the employee would be visiting. Em-
ployee Ken Tyson received such permission on May 24, after
revealing that he intended to distribute union literature during
a visit to another block.2
Union literature began appearing at Thermon’s Texaco
jobsite during the first week after the strikers began to return
to work. I find from Superintendent Brookshire’s testimony
that he became aware of it during that period. Employees en-
gaged in such activity, who violated Thermon’s requirement
that they remain in an assigned block area, were subject to
discipline. Thermon punished a first violation of this rule by
written warning. A second violation of this restriction in-
curred discharge. Thermon also enforced this rule, however,
against employees Ronnie Bell and Clay Marshall, who did
not engage in any union activity. Each received a written
warning for leaving his work area without permission from
a supervisor.
Thermon issued written warnings to the following named
employees, on the dates shown next to their respective
names, for violating the restriction contained in Wagstaff’s
memorandum of March 12:
Jimmy C. Parker 4/18/94
Tony Fontenot 4/18/94
Craig Bivins 4/14/94
Rodney Bernard 4/14/94
Willie Breaux 4/11/94
Darrell Haygood 4/21/94
Claude Richardson 4/20/94
Joe Sheffield 4/18/94
Joe Duhon 4/20/94
Jason Carr 4/19/94
Randy Garner 4/19/94
Scott Lout 4/21/94
Ken Tyson 6/03/94
Marc Gould 4/27/94
Carl Perricone 4/27/94
Thermon also discharged the following named employees
on the dates shown next to their respective names, for violat-
1037THERMON HEAT TRACING SERVICES
3 McNeely testified that he began working at Thermon’s Texaco
jobsite in April. His testimony, however, regarding when he heard
Wagstaff refer to his directive shows that McNeely began working
at that site in March. McNeely’s application for employment shows
Thermon hired him on March 9. I find that McNeely began working
at Thermon’s Texaco site in March.
4 Brookshire testfied that he saw McNeely at a tool trailer getting
tools or material. Brookshire did not contradict McNeely’s testi-
mony, however, that he spoke to Brookshire and that Brookshire had
assigned him to block 1. On cross-examination, Brookshire seemed
reluctant to explain how supervisors enforced Thermon’s restriction
on employee movement between blocks at its Texaco jobsite. In-
deed, he suggested that counsel for the General Counsel ask
Wagstaff about it. Yet, the record shows that in 1994, Brookshire
had signed a considerable number of warning and discharge slips for
employees who had violated that rule, after receiving reports from
subordinate supervisors who had enforced the rule. Surely this expe-
rience would have enlightened Brookshire on how supervisors were
identifying violators of the restriction. This factor plus my impres-
sion that McNeely was a frank witness, giving his best recollection,
persuaded me to credit McNeely where their testimony differed.
5 I based my findings regarding McNeely’s encounters with
Maydian and McMain on his uncontradicted testimony. Neither
Maydien nor McMain testified in this proceeding.
ing the restriction contained in Wagstaff’s memorandum of
March 12:
Jimmy C. Parker 4/18/94
Tony Fontenot 4/18/94
Craig Bivins 4/14/94
Rodney Bernard 4/14/94
Willie Breaux 4/11/94
Darrell Haygood 4/21/94
Claude Richardson 4/20/94
Joe Sheffield 4/18/94
Joe Duhon 4/20/94
Jason Carr 4/19/94
Randy Garner 4/19/94
Scott Lout 4/21/94
Ken Tyson 6/03/94
Marc Gould 4/27/94
Carl Perricone 4/27/94
The parties stipulated, and I find, that all of the employees
listed above, who received written warnings and were dis-
charged for leaving their assigned block areas, were engaging
in union activity during their respective lunchbreaks, when
they violated Wagstaff’s memorandum of March 12. The
parties also stipulated that if Scott Lout, listed above, were
to testify in this proceeding, he would state that after he had
received his first warning, as reflected above, he specifically
asked permission of his foreman, Therman Singleterry, to
speak to nonunion employees, out of his work area, over the
lunchbreak, and that Singleterry denied Lout’s request.
Employee Walter H. McNeely, a union electrician, escaped
punishment for repeatedly leaving his assigned area at
lunchbreaks without a supervisor’s permission in May and
June. Unlike the listed employees, however, McNeely was
not a striker.
McNeely’s prounion sentiment was unknown to Thermon,
when it hired him in March, during the strike.3 McNeely did
not inform Thermon of his membership in IBEW Local 716.
Nor did his job application reveal prior employment by a
union contractor. Yet McNeely had come on this job at the
Union’s request. The Union paid McNeely $2 per hour for
up to 40 hours per week to keep it informed of happenings
on Thermon’s Texaco jobsite. Despite his ties with Local
716 and the Union, McNeely did not display any union in-
signia on his person. Nor did he otherwise reveal his
prounion sentiment while employed by Thermon at the Tex-
aco site.
Thermon fired McNeely, 2 weeks after hiring him, after he
left the jobsite without permission. Thermon rehired him
soon thereafter.
During his lunchbreaks in May and June, McNeely fre-
quently visited employees outside of his work area, at
Thermon’s Texaco jobsite, without seeking his foreman’s
permission. McNeely, who was assigned to block 1, usually
visited block 3. On one of these visits, he encountered Safety
Director Wagstaff and spoke to him. Wagstaff did not chal-
lenge McNeely for being in block 3. On another occasion,
McNeely met and talked to Superintendent Brookshire, who
had assigned him to block 1. Again, nothing was said by
Brookshire about McNeely’s presence in block 3. Thermon
did not discipline McNeely for any of these visits.4
On one occasion during the same 2 months, McNeely was
between blocks 1 and 3, when he ran into Thermon’s super-
intendent, Todd McMain. McNeely was outside of his as-
signed block on another occasion, when he met Thermon’s
general foreman, Tom Maydian. Both supervisors knew that
McNeely’s assigned work area was block 1. Neither of the
supervisors asked McNeely if he was in compliance with
Thermon’s rule. Thermon never disciplined McNeely for vio-
lating the restriction in Wagstaff’s memorandum.5
I find from McNeely’s uncontradicted testimony that
Thermon used its new restriction to thwart union activity at
its Texaco jobsite. In March, McNeely overheard Wagstaff
saying that he would write up the union people who were
distributing literature, for safety violations because they were
out of their assigned work areas. In mid-April, while seated
near a foreman, who was speaking into a radio, he heard the
voices of other Thermon foremen warning their colleagues
that individuals characterized as ‘‘union people’’ had left
their assigned blocks and were on the way to other blocks.
McNeely also observed employees distributing union lit-
erature during their lunchbreaks, outside their assigned
blocks.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Thermon’s work rule
that prohibited employees from leaving their assigned work
areas on the Texaco jobsite at Port Neches, Texas, during
their lunchbreaks, between 12 and 12:30 p.m., violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. According to the General Counsel,
this rule was an overly broad restriction on its employees’
union activity. Thermon urges dismissal of this allegation on
the ground that it issued this rule in the interest of safety,
at the direction of Brown and Root. For the reasons stated
below, I find that the General Counsel has failed to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that Thermon’s work rule
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
It is well settled that: ‘‘No restriction may be placed on
the employees’ right to discuss self-organization among
themselves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a re-
striction is necessary to maintain production or discipline.’’
NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 113 (1956)
1038 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(citing Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793
(1945)). Consistent with this holding, the Board, in
Permaneer Corp., 214 NLRB 367, 369 (1974), recognized
that a rule restricting employees to a specified plant lunch-
room during their lunchbreaks was lawful, when ‘‘it was im-
portant’’ and expressed the following purposes:
[T]o have employees congregated in one area so that
they could be quickly called upon to fight fires, an ever
present danger in a plant with highly combustible mate-
rial; to have employees immediately available in case
of production breakdown since the plant operated on a
continuous basis; and to prevent accidents to employees
who might otherwise wander about the plant.
In the instant case, the restriction on employee movement
from block to block during lunchbreaks would interfere with
Thermon’s employees’ rights to discuss their sentiments to-
ward the Union, and to distribute union literature among
themselves. The record shows, however, that Thermon issued
its rule 2 days after receiving Brown and Root’s memoran-
dum to all subcontractors requiring them to restrict their em-
ployees to ‘‘their designated work areas’’ and prohibit them
from traveling ‘‘around into other areas of the Project.’’
Thermon’s safety director, Wagstaff, implemented Brown
and Root’s directive when he prepared Thermon’s restriction
in the form of a personnel directive. The credited testimony
of Brown and Root’s subcontracts manager, Haught, showed
that contemplated hazards caused him to issue his employer’s
memorandum. Thermon issued its restriction for the same
reason. Accordingly, I find that Thermon’s restriction was a
lawful rule that, as a subcontractor, it was obliged to impose
on its employees at the Texaco jobsite. I shall recommend
dismissal of the allegation that this rule violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
I find merit, however, in the General Counsel’s contention
that Thermon enforced its restriction in a discriminatory
manner and thereby violated the Act. Specifically, the com-
plaint alleges that Thermon violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act by issuing written warnings to, and discharging,
the employees listed above, because they were engaged in
activity in support of the Union. Thermon argues that it pun-
ished those employees only because they violated the restric-
tion in Wagstaff’s memorandum of March 12. The record
amply supports the General Counsel’s position.
Under Board policy, where the record shows that an em-
ployer’s hostility toward union activity was a motivating fac-
tor in a decision to discipline or to discharge an employee,
the disciplinary action or discharge will be found to be un-
lawful unless the employer is able to demonstrate, as an af-
firmative defense, that it would have disciplined or dis-
charged the employee even in the absence of the protected
activity. NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393, 402–403 (1983), affg. Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083 (1980), enfd. on other grounds 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). When it is shown
that the business reason advanced by the employer for its ac-
tion was a pretext—that is, that the reason either does not
exist or was not in fact relied on—it necessarily follows that
the employer has not met its burden and the inquiry is logi-
cally at an end. Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1084.
In the instant case, the evidence leaves little doubt about
Thermon’s unlawful motive as it enforced its restriction on
employee movement during their lunchbreaks. All of the em-
ployees listed above, who received warnings or discharges,
were engaged in union activity during a lunchbreak when the
restriction was enforced against them. Wagstaff, the author of
the restriction, saw it as a pretext for getting rid of union ac-
tivists. Thermon’s foremen targeted union activists for en-
forcement of the restriction. Conversely, McNeely’s testi-
mony showed that Thermon’s management was willing to
relax the restriction against employees not identified as union
supporters.
Thermon’s effort to show evenhanded enforcement of its
restriction rests on the warnings issued to employees Bell
and Marshall. Neither of these employees engaged in any
union activity prior to their warning notices. This evidence
leaves unrebutted, however, the General Counsel’s showing
that Thermon saw the restriction as a pretext for getting rid
of union activists. I find that Thermon violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by issuing warnings to the follow-
ing employees on the dates set opposite their names:
Jimmy C. Parker 4/12/94
Tony Fontenot 4/12/94
Craig Bivins 4/12/94
Rodney Bernard 4/11/94
Willie Breaux 4/11/94
Darrell Haygood 4/18/94
Claude Richardson 4/19/94
Joe Sheffield 4/14/94
Joe Duhon 4/19/94
Jason Carr 4/19/94
Randy Garner 4/19/94
Scott Lout 4/20/94
Ken Tyson 5/24/94
Marc Gould 4/26/94
Carl Perricone 4/27/94
I also find that Thermon violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act by discharging the following employees on the
dates set their names:
Jimmy C. Parker 4/18/94
Tony Fontenot 4/18/94
Craig Bivins 4/14/94
Rodney Bernard 4/14/94
Willie Breaux 4/11/94
Darrell Haygood 4/21/94
Claude Richardson 4/20/94
Joe Sheffield 4/18/94
Joe Duhon 4/20/94
Jason Carr 4/19/94
Randy Garner 4/19/94
Scott Lout 4/21/94
Ken Tyson 6/03/94
Marc Gould 4/27/94
Carl Perricone 4/27/94
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging and issuing warning slips to employees,
the Respondent, Thermon Heat Tracing Services, Inc., has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
1039THERMON HEAT TRACING SERVICES
6 In accordance with the Board’s policy expressed in Dean Gen-
eral Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987), I recommend that the Re-
spondent be afforded an opportunity at compliance to limit its reme-
dial obligations by showing that none of the unlawfully discharged
employees listed in the Order would have been transferred to other
projects.
7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by writing, promulgating, and maintaining the following
rule:
In order to maintain a safe, continual and productive
work force it is necessary that all craft personnel re-
main in their assigned block areas.
This mandate will commence this date and shall in-
clude all breaks and on the job lunch periods.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatory discharged employ-
ees, it must offer them reinstatement or employment at the
same or substantially equivalent positions at other projects as
close as possible to Port Neches, Texas. In addition, the Re-
spondent must make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits, they may have suffered as a result of the Re-
spondent’s unlawful discrimination against them, computed
on a quarterly basis, from date of discharge to date of proper
offer of reinstatement or employment, less any net interim
earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).6
I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to re-
move from its files any references to the warnings or dis-
charges that I have found violative of the Act, as set forth
above, and notify the employees, who were thus disciplined,
in writing, that it has done so and that it will not use these
warnings and discharges against them in any way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended7
ORDER
The Respondent, Thermon Heat Tracing Services, Inc.,
Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Issuing written warnings to, discharging, or otherwise
discriminating against any employee for supporting Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 479 or any
other union.
(b) 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) Offer the following employees immediate and full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer ex-
ists, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed, and make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of the decision:
Jimmy C. Parker Tony Fontenot
Craig Bivins Rodney Bernard
Willie Breaux Darrell Haygood
Claude Richardson Joe Sheffield
Joe Duhon Jason Carr
Randy Garner Scott Lout
Ken Tyson Marc Gould
Carl Perricone
(b) Remove from its files any references to the unlawful
discharges and notify the employees listed above, in writing,
that this has been done and that the discharges will not be
used against them in any way.
(c) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
written warnings issued to the following employees and no-
tify the employees, in writing, that this has been done and
that the written warnings will not be used against them in
any way:
Jimmy C. Parker Tony Fontenot
Craig Bivins Rodney Bernard
Willie Breaux Darell Haygood
Claude Richardson Joe Sheffield
Joe Duhon Jason Carr
Randy Garner Scott Lout
Ken Tyson Marc Gould
Carl Perricone
(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) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appen-
dix,’’8 to the last known address of Jimmy C. Parker, Craig
Bivins, Willie Breaux, Claude Richardson, Joe Duhon,
Randy Garner, Ken Tyson, Tony Fontenot, Rodney Bernard,
Darrell Haygood, Joe Sheffield, Jason Carr, Scott Lout, Marc
Gould, and Carl Perricone. Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall
be mailed by the Respondent immediately upon receipt.
(f) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient cop-
ies of the notice for posting by the Union, if willing, at its
office and meeting halls, including all places where notices
are customarily posted.
1040 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 6, 1995
APPENDIX
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.
WE WILL NOT discharge you or impose discipline on you,
or otherwise discriminate against any of you, for supporting
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 479
or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer the following employees immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them plus interest:
Jimmy C. Parker Tony Fontenot
Craig Bivins Rodney Bernard
Willie Breaux Darrell Haygood
Claude Richardson Joe Sheffield
Joe Duhon Jason Carr
Randy Garner Scott Lout
Ken Tyson Marc Gould
Carl Perricone
WE WILL remove from our files any references to the un-
lawful discharges and notify the employees listed above, in
writing, that this has been done and that the discharges will
not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the un-
lawful written warnings issued to the following employees
and notify them, in writing, that this has been done and that
the written warnings will not be used against them in any
way:
Jimmy C. Parker Tony Fontenot
Craig Bivins Rodney Bernard
Willie Breaux Darrell Haygood
Claude Richardson Joe Sheffield
Joe Duhon Jason Carr
Randy Garner Scott Lout
Ken Tyson Marc Gould
Carl Perricone
THERMON HEAT TRACING SERVICES, INC.