Turner Tool and Joint Rebuilders

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 595 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

TURNER TOOL AND JOINT REBUILDERS 595
Turner Tool and Joint Rebuilders Corporation and
Gilbert Villarreal. Case 23-CA-7910
June 16, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 28, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Richard J. Linton issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions.'
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, 2 and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Turner Tool
Joint and Rebuilders Corporation, Corpus Christi,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
I Respondent contends that it was denied due process of law because
the "charge and the General Counsel's complaint failed to give defendant
fair notice of the basis of the charge by failing to comply fully with the
requirement that the basis of the charge "be specific as to facts, names.
addresses, plants involved, dates, places, etc." We find no merit in this
contention. The record shows that the charge complies fully with the re-
quirements of Sec. 102.12 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, that the
complaint sufficiently specified the allegations, and that Respondent was
fully advised of the General Counsel's contentions at the hearing. Lloyd
A. Fry Roofing Company, 109 NLRB 1314 (1954). See also Sec. 102.15 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations.
2 Because the asserted lawful reason for the discharge of Gilbert Vil-
larreal was plainly pretextual, that is, specious and fabricated, as the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge found, Board Member Jenkins regards his further
reliance on Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 146
(1980), is unnecessary. Where the defense is found to be pretextual, it is
ipso facto rejected as a sham and the burden of proof and sufficiency of
rebuttal analysis of Wright Line can add nothing.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. LINTON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Corpus Christi, Texas, on
October 7, 1980, pursuant to a complaint issued on June
11, 1980, by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board through the Acting Regional Director
for Region 23. The complaint is based on a charge filed
on April 28, 1980, by Gilbert Villarreal,' an individual,
against Turner Tool and Joint Rebuilders Corporation,
Respondent herein.
In his complaint, the General Counsel alleges that Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by threatening and in-
' The spelling of Villarreal's name is hereby corrected.
256 NLRB No. 101
terrogating an employee, and Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by discharging Villarreal on April 23, 1980.
In its answer, as amended, Respondent admits certain
allegations, but denies that it has violated the Act in any
manner. Affirmatively, it alleges that, although it dis-
charged Villarreal for his apparent disregard of work
rules and warnings not to violate same, it thereafter, on
May 19, 1980, offered him reinstatement which he de-
clined.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Texas corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Corpus Christi, Texas, re-
furbishes oil field drilling tools and pipe. During the past
12 months, Respondent performed services valued in
excess of $50,000 for customers located in States outside
the State of Texas. Respondent admits, and I find, that it
is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits for the purpose of this proceeding,
and I find, that Laborers' International Union of North
America, Local Union 1179, AFL-CIO, the Union
herein, is now, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
li. THE ALEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology
1. Background
Charging Party Gilbert Villarreal, rehired 2 by Re-
spondent as a welder in late October 1979 and dis-
charged on April 23, 1980,3 testified that in March the
employees were unhappy over their low wages. 4 Regu-
lar departmental meetings, held every 2 weeks on
Wednesday paydays, are conducted by the supervisors
regarding safety and production. At such meetings in
March, Plant Supervisor Charles C. Wright told the
welders that the machinists had received a pay increase
and that the welders would too if they increased their
productivity and cut down on reruns.
2 He previously worked for Respondent for about 3 months in 1916
3 All dates herein are for 1980 unless specified differently or the con-
text shows otherwise
4 Villarreal favorably impressed me with his candid and forthright
manner of testifying and, based in part on his demeanor, I credit his testi-
mony in all significant respects.
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Events of April 22
When the welders had received no pay increase by
April 22,5 Villarreal, on that morning, began circulating
among the welders, and also the machinists in an adjoin-
ing building, inquiring whether they would be in favor
of the Union. About 90 percent of the 12 welders he
contacted answered in the affirmative. 6 Around I p.m.
on April 22, Villarreal telephoned the Union and spoke
to Gilbert Rios (presumably to report the results of his
survey).
When Villarreal, during his survey, 7 spoke to George
(last name not identified), a machinist in nearby shop 11I,
Machinist Supervisor Tim Lane8 loudly interrupted Vil-
larreal saying that a union would ruin the company, and
for Villarreal to get out of his working area. Lane's ver-
sion is substantially the same as Villarreal's, adding: "He
was discussing the union. I told him that is not the time
nor the place to talk about it." There is no allegation that
Lane's remarks are violative of the Act.
Later in the day of April 22, around 4 p.m., Plant Su-
pervisor Wright called Villarreal aside from his welding
and, in a loud and agitated manner, told him: "Gilbert,
you are messing up talking union on company time. It's a
very easy way to get fired." Wright also told Villarreal
that the Union and the Company "wasn't going to get
it," that they had tried to organized it once and it did
not work, so just "forget about the union."9
Wright's testimony was not entirely different. "I asked
him what in the devil he thought he was doing out here
talking about the union on company time, when he is sup-
posed to be at his own station working. That's been tried
out here before, and it wouldn't work." (Emphasis sup-
plied.) Wright's final statement to Villarreal was that he
did not care what Villarreal said or did on his own
time L o " When he was out that front gate." (Emphasis sup-
plied.)
As noted earlier, I credit Villarreal's testimony gener-
ally, and I do so regarding this conversation. However,
Wright's own version indicates that it was the union talk,
and particularly on company premises, which caused him
to be upset. There is no evidence that Respondent has a
valid no-solicitation rule or forbids employees from dis-
cussing sports, politics, hobbies, or any other subject
during working time. As for employees talking, I credit
Villarreal's testimony that Respondent never told em-
ployees at meetings the substance of posted Rule 5
which states: "Do not sit around and visit with you
welding partner-There is always work to be done." In
s Plant Supervisor Wright testified that the welders were paid different
rates: A basic hourly salary, plus a commission on pipe welded, plus a
$125-a-month attendance rate. I do not view this testimony as inconsist-
ent with Villarreal's on the point.
s Wright testified that there were some 12 to 16 welders employed in
April. with half being on the day shift and half on the evening shift. Vice
President Danny Turner testified that the plant employs some 65 to 70
workers.
He admits that the survey spanned as much as 1-1/2 hours since he
had to return to his work station two or three times
s The parties stipulated that Lane was a statutory supervisor at all ma-
terial times.
D Complaint pars. 8(a), (b), and (c).
ID At the hearing, Wright testified that the plant works two 10-hour
shifts with no formal breaks. Welders work in two-person teams and ar-
range their own times for stopping work to eat lunch.
any event, Wright in effect concedes, as will be noted,
that rules prohibiting roaming and visiting were honored
more in the breach than in the observance.
Still later that evening at a scheduled supervisors'
meeting, Wright admittedly told his supervisors that he
was tired of everybody doing what they wanted to when
they wanted to, and if either Welding Foreman Marvin
Davis or Yard Foreman William Johnson "caught Villar-
real away from his work station again they were to fire
him."
Foreman Davis, called by the General Counsel under
Federal Rules of Evidence 611(c), recalled that it was
mentioned at the meeting that Villarreal had been caught
away from his station talking "union politics," and that if
he was caught off his station again, to "discharge him."
Davis recalled that not only Wright spoke on the sub-
ject, but also Machinist Supervisor Tim Lane and Yard
Foreman Bill Johnson, but he could recall nothing fur-
ther about the remarks made.
3. Events of April 23
Davis admittedly told Villarreal the following day,
April 23, to stay on his work station and work "because
if we caught him-if he was caught off, he would be dis-
missed."
Villarreal testified that, around 7:15 that morning,
Davis came and told him that at the supervisors' meeting
the previous night Villarreal's name had been mentioned
for "pushing" the Union and that, if any of the supervi-
sors caught Villarreal out of his work area, to fire him. "
Davis then suggested that Villarreal stay in his work
area because: "If you want to go out of your working
area, you can get fired. They are out to get you."' 2 (Em-
phasis supplied.)
When recalled by Respondent and asked if he had told
Villarreal "they're out to get you," Davis testified, "I
don't think I said that." He admits, however, that he
used "some strong terms" in telling Villarreal he would
be fired if caught off his station.
I do not hesitate to credit the positive testimony of
Villarreal over the uncertain testimony of Davis. Indeed,
Davis admitted most of Villarreal's version.
About 2 hours later, Davis told Villarreal the latter
had received a telephone call from Rudy Zavala (a
former employee) and that Villarreal could return the
call when he finished his current project. Nearly an hour
later, on completing that stage of his work, Villarreal
proceeded to the field office and called Zavala. As he
terminated the call, Yard Foreman Johnson entered. Vil-
larreal asked Johnson if he knew that Zavala had a
boxing match scheduled in Baton Rouge. Ignoring the
question, Johnson asked, "Were you talking union yester-
day on company time?"' 3 Villarreal responded in the af-
firmative, to which Johnson replied, "You're fired." Vil-
larreal protested that he was only seeking better wages
and working conditions for everybody, but Johnson per-
sisted: "No, Gilbert, trying to solicit and talk union on
company time isn't going to get it. You're fired." John-
' Complaint par 9(a).
z Complaint pars. 9(b) and (c)
I3 Complaint par. 10.
TURNER TOOL AND JOINT REBUILDERS 597
son stated that he would punch Villarreal out, and that
concluded the conversation. Villarreal testified that
Johnson did not ask him what he was doing away from
his station, and said nothing about his using the tele-
phone.
Johnson's version is significantly different. He state
that he personally had warned Villarreal about a dozen
times to stay away from the OD shop and remain at his
work station.t 4 On the morning of April 23, "in making
the rounds," Johnson observed Villarreal missing from
his station. When he walked into the office, he found
Villarreal using the telephone. When Villarreal complet-
ed his call, Johnson asked him how many times he had
reminded him to stay at his work station. "I don't re-
member if he made a response or not, but I don't think
he did, If he did, it was something like, 'no comment,' or
'Okay' or something along that nature. I am not sure.
But I told him that he was fired."
Johnson, asked at the hearing if Villarreal made any
response on being told he was fired, testified, "I don't
think he did." He further stated that Villarreal said noth-
ing about Welding Foreman Davis having giving him
permission to be there using the telephone.
Some 20 to 30 minutes after discharging Villarreal,
Johnson told Welding Foreman Davis of the discharge.
Davis responded that he had given Villarreal permission
to use the telephone, to which Johnson replied that he
had been unaware of that fact and Villarreal had not
mentioned it.
Johnson then reported these events to Plant Supervi-
sor Wright. He could not recall what Wright said other
than he thought they simply discussed what had oc-
curred. Related to this point is Wright's testimony that
he confirmed with Davis the telephone permission.
Wright expressed the thought to Davis that if Villarreal
"did not care any more about a job that he couldn't
argue in his own self-defense, well, to heck with him."'
Johnson also testified that he previously had fired one
George Reyes for conduct similar to Villarreal's, that is,
violating welding shop Rule 1. This posted'" rule reads:
"Stay in your work area except to go to the restroom,
coke machine, or to get welding supplies." Cross-exami-
nation disclosed, however, that Reyes was fired for leav-
ing the plant site-not simply for being in a different
area.
Wright also testified that others had been fired for the
same conduct as Villarreal's, and he named George
Reyes (whom Johnson had identified), Tony Sanchez,
Rudy Silva, Gilbert Trigo, and Rudy Zavala. Under
cross-examination, however, Wright conceded that
Zavala, even though he had demonstrated a history of
roaming around the plant, "and making phone calls, just
like most of them out there," was fired by Johnson and
14 Johnson stated that this had been a problem with other employees
in the past, and he had also warned other employees.
t Wright confessed at the hearing that "I might have used a little
more flowery terms than that." I take this to mean that, for some reason,
he laced his comment with some profanity.
t' The evidence is that the rule, with seven others, has been posted for
2 or 3 years at least. Although Villarreal testified he had never seen it, he
confirmed that the welders had orally been instructed to the same effect
regarding the rules in issue here (but not as to all the rules appearing on
Resp. Exh. 3).
then only when he had been absent from the plant for 2
days without calling in.
Q. It wasn't Rule No. I? It was because he was
absent and didn't phone in?
A. I guess so.
Further cross-examination disclosed that, although
Trigo had been fired for violating Rule 1, the discharge
occurred "at least a year ago," and only after Trigo per-
sonally received three or four warnings from Wright.
Wright explained that they had to be lenient at the plant
in the hope that the roaming employees would recognize
their responsibility to do their work.
Villarreal admitted that, in early March, Wright, on
observing him out of his work area, told him that, if he
ever caught him out again, he would be fired. Of course,
Wright warned Villarreal again on April 22. Villarreal
testified he had forgotten about the warning of early
March, but admits he knew he was violating the shop
rules when he roamed around out of his work area on
April 22. He testified, however, that it was not uncom-
mon for employees to do so.
Villarreal testified that the work he was doing that
day permitted him to be idle for a time, and that he did
not fail to perform any of his duties. While it appears un-
disputed that the welders do have considerable time they
do not weld, it is also clear that Respondent expects
them to remain in their area not only for general produc-
tion reasons, but also for the safety factor of assisting
their team partner in the event of an accident-as has
happened. Thus, I attach no weight to Villarreal's state-
ment that he did not (in this general sense) fail to per-
form his duties. His employer, Respondent here, and not
employee Villarreal, sets and determines what work
duties are expected. But having said that, it is equally
clear that such statement does not resolve the issue at
hand.
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
Wright's own testimony establishes that the roaming
around was all too common at the plant. The key ques-
tion is why did he instruct his supervisors on the evening
of April 22 to tighten up on Villarreal (and apparently
just Villarreal). Obviously, it was because Villarreal was
sparking a new union campaign, and Wright issued a
"get Villarreal" order. Moreover, it was to be done on a
pretext-the next time he was out of his area.
While I credit Villarreal's version of his discharge by
Johnson, I recognize that it is a bit strange that Johnson
would rely on Villarreal's union talk of the day before
when Wright himself had not elected to fire Villarreal
then. I can only conclude that Wright was more circum-
spect on April 22 than Johnson was on April 23. Thus,
Johnson was the one to "catch" Villarreal after Wright's
"get him" order of the night before. In doing so, John-
son unwittingly referred to the real reason, rather than to
the prearranged pretext, for discharging Villarreal.
Moreover, I find it quite incredible that Villarreal would
have said nothing about the telephone permission by
Davis had the conversation been as suggested by John-
son. Villarreal's organizing conduct on April 22 shows
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that indeed he was interested in his job (contrary to
Wright's alleged remarks about Villarreal's supposed fail-
ure to speak in defense of his job). Finally, I find John-
son's demeanor to be suspect. His very testimony reflects
this in his uncertainty about what Villarreal had to say in
the office, or what he and Wright said later. According-
ly, I find that the General Counsel made a strong prima
facie case showing that Villarreal's protected conduct of
soliciting for the Union on April 22, 1980, was the moti-
vating factor in Respondent's discharge of Villarreal on
April 23, 1980.
Under Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251
NLRB 146 (1980), after the General Counsel established
his prima facie case, Respondent had the burden of show-
ing that Villarreal would have been discharged for being
away from his work area regardless of his protected ac-
tivity of April 22. Respondent has not met this burden,
for I have found the Rule I reason to have been a pre-
text and not advanced in good faith. This is so for two
reasons: (I) Johnson bluntly based the discharge on Vil-
larreal's talking union during company time on April 22;
and (2) even if Johnson's version were accepted, the
credited facts reflect that the given reason, that Villar-
real was away from his work station, was nothing but a
pretext prearranged by Wright the evening of April 22 in
order to (a) chill the union organizing by tightening up
on all the roaming around, and (b) get rid of the one
who was sparking employee interest in the Union.
Respondent, in effect, argues that its post-discharge
conduct in asking Villarreal to return to work demon-
strates that it had no improper motive in discharging the
Charging Party. Thus, Vice President Danny Turner,
who apparently was out of town on April 22 and 23,17
testified that, after receiving reports on the discharge,
Respondent prepared the offer to return letter and Fore-
man Johnson delivered it. Wright, despite a leading ques-
tion, testified he could not recall much about the discus-
sion on the letter, but that the letter was based on the
circumstances of the discharge.
Those circumstances, in the language of the letter
(Resp. Exh. 1)8 from Danny Turner to Villarreal, are as
follows:
After your termination as an employee of Turner
Tool Joint Rebuilders Corporation, we learned that
there were failures of communication between you
and two supervisors and also between the two su-
pervisors concerning the circumstances of your ter-
mination. We regret the failures of communication
between the two supervisors and between you and
the two supervisors. Your termination could have
been avoided if you had merely reported that you
had permission to be away from your job duties to
use the telephone for personal reasons at the time of
your termination. We expect that we will improve
communications among our supervisors and with
you and that you will improve your communcia-
tions with us. In view of the regrettable failures in
t; Turner testified that he was uncertain; Wright stated that Turner
was on vacation.
' The letter is dated, and apparently delivered on, May 19. The
charge herein was filed on April 28.
communication, we request that you return to work
immediately, and we look forward to improved
communications and relationships in the continu-
ation of your employment with us.
Respondent's May 19 explanation of the reason for
Villarreal's discharge, i.e., a four-way failure in commu-
nications, expounds a plausible, innocent basis for the dis-
charge. The problem with that post-charge theory is that
I find that the crucial facts do not support it. Although
Respondent's witnesses testified that Villarreal's union
activities had nothing to do with his discharge, and no
instructions were issued to terminate him for such activi-
ties, I am persuaded, and I find, otherwise.
In accordance with the foregoing, I find that Respond-
ent, as alleged, unlawfully threatened and interrogated
Gilbert Villarreal on April 22 and 23, 1980, and dis-
charged him on April 23, 1980, in violation of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.' 9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by unlawfully interrogating employees about their union
activities, and by illegally threatening them with dis-
charge because of the activities on behalf of the Union.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging Gilbert Villarreal on April 23,
1980.
5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the
unfair labor practices set forth above, I shall recommend
that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, to take
affirmative action designed to effecutate the policies of
the Act, and to post signed and dated copies of an appro-
priate notice to employees.
The General Counsel does not seek an order requiring
Respondent to offer reinstatement because, as stated at
the hearing, he deems the letter of May 19, 1980, to have
been a valid offer of reinstatement. In this connection, at
the hearing Respondent's counsel, after consulting with
Vice President Turner, represented that Villarreal would
have been reinstated to his same position at the same pay
rate and with the same benefits and seniority he enjoyed
before his discharge. Accordingly, the General Counsel
remedially seeks only a notice plus backpay from April
23 to May 19, 1980.
The only problem with treating the May 19 letter as a
valid offer of reinstatement is that it sets forth a dis-
19 This is not to say that Respondent cannot enforce its rules (assum-
ing that none are unlawfully broad). However, it cannot selectively en-
force them. as here, based on unlawful considerations.
---
TURNER TOOL AND JOINT REBUILDERS 599
charge version which, as I have found, is not true.2 0 It
could be argued that the May 19 letter is conditional (be-
cause it sets forth an incorrect factual version), and
should not be deemed a valid reinstatement offer under
the Act. Nevertheless, the General Counsel appears to be
correct in his position. Thus, in Anderson Plumbing and
Heating Company, 203 NLRB 18 (1973), the Board re-
jected an administrative law judge's finding that the em-
ployer's reinstatement offer was ambiguous and uncondi-
tional because the employer also inquired whether the
workers "were going to act like men or boys." 2 ' Infer-
ring that this meant the employees would have to return
on the employer's (illegal) terms, the administrative law
judge found the offer to be ambiguous and conditional.
The Board found that the vague reference to acting "like
men" set no precondition and therefore the offer was
valid. 2 2
In view of the foregoing, I shall not recommend that
Respondent be ordered to offer Gilbert Villarreal imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former job. Backpay
shall be computed in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest computed in the manner prescribed
in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See,
generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962). The backpay period begins April 23, 1980, and
closes on May 19, 1980, as the closing date is defined in
Fredeman's Calcasieu Locks Shipyard Inc., 208 NLRB 839
(1974).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 2 3
The Respondent, Turner Tool and Joint Rebuilders
Corporation, Corpus Christi, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully threatening employees with discharge if
they discuss the Union, or any other labor organization,
on company time.
20 While Foreman Johnson no doubt was unaware that Foreman Davis
had given Villarreal permission to use the telephone, that act of commu-
nication is not the crucial issue under the facts I have found. Johnson, as
I have found, seized on what he thought was an opportunity to "get"
Villarreal.
21 It is well settled that "an employer's offer of reinstatement must be
unequivocal, specific, and unconditional for it to remedy the employers
unfair labor practices." Trn-State Truck Service, Inc., 241 NLRB 225
(1979), enforcement denied without reaching remedy 616 F.2d 65 (3d Cir.
1980).
22 But cf. ABCO Engineering Corp., 201 NLRB 686 (1973), enfd. 505
F.2d 735 (8th Cir. 1974). Moreover, there is no record evidence that Re-
spondent ever explained the unconditional nature of its offer (no loss of
benefits, etc.) to Villarreal. At the hearing, as noted above, Respondent's
counsel did so represent that the offer was unconditional. In addition,
there is no evidence that in fact Villarreal declined the offer, although I
infer he did not accept based on the matters presented.
53 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 recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 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.
(b) Telling employees that Respondent would not tol-
erate the Union, or any other labor organization, in the
plant.
(c) Impliedly threatening employees with discharge if
they do not forget about the Union, or any other labor
organization.
(d) Unlawfully threatening employees with discharge
by telling them management has decided to terminate
them if it catches them out of their work area because
they have been pushing the Union, or any other labor or-
ganization.
(e) Unlawfully threatening employees with discharge if
they are caught out of their work area.
(f) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning
whether they are, or have been, discussing the Union,
Laborers' International Union of North America, Local
Union 1179, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
on company time.
(g) Discouraging membership in Laborers' Internation-
al Union of North America, Local Union 1179, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, by unlawfully dis-
charging any of its employees or discriminating against
them in any other manner with respect to their hire or
tenure of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Laborers' International Union of North America, Local
Union 1179, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to act together for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Make whole Gilbert Villarreal for any loss of pay
that he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's un-
lawful discharge of him in accordance with the recom-
mendations set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Corpus Christi, Texas, plant signed
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 24
Copies of said notice, to Respondent by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 23, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
24 In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence and cross-examine witnesses, the
National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act, and the Board
has ordered us to post this notice and to comply with its
provisions. We intend to abide by the following:
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as
employees, the right:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of your own choice
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
Accordingly, we give you these assurances:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten you with dis-
charge for discussing Laborers' International Union
of North America, Local Union 1179, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, on company time.
WE WILl. NOT tell you that we will not tolerate
Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local Union 1179, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, in the plant.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten to discharge
you if you do not forget about Laborers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, Local Union 1179,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten you with dis-
charge by telling you that we have decided to ter-
minate you if we catch you out of your work area
because you have been "pushing" for Laborers' In-
ternational Union of North America, Local Union
1179, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten to discharge
you if you are caught out of your work area.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully question you concern-
ing whether you are, or have been, discussing La-
borers' International Union of North America,
Local Union 1179, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, on company time.
WE WILL NOT discourage you from joining or
supporting Laborers' International Union of North
America, Local Union 1179, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, by unlawfully discharging
any of you or otherwise discriminating against you
with respect to your hire or tenure of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce you in your exercise
of the rights guaranteed you under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE HAVE offered Gilbert Villarreal immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job with full se-
niority and all other rights and benefits.
WE WILL. pay Gilbert Villarreal any backpay,
with interest, which he lost because we fired him on
April 23, 1980.
TURNER TOOL AND JOINT REBUILDERS
CORPORATION