Zurn Nepco

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 811 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

811
316 NLRB No. 133
ZURN NEPCO
1 The Respondent moves to dismiss the General Counsel’s excep-
tions on the ground that they fail to comply with Sec. 102.46(b)(1)(i)
and (iii) and (b)(2) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations in that they
do not designate any citations to the hearing transcript pages, hearing
exhibits, or specify any other ‘‘portions of the record relied on’’ to
support the exceptions. The Respondent relies on Ichikoh Mfg., 312
NLRB 1022 (1993). In that case, the General Counsel did not file
any exceptions as to the relevant issue. Here, exceptions have been
filed and the question is whether they should be rejected as failing
to comply with the Board’s rules. Although the General Counsel’s
exceptions do not comply in all particulars with Sec. 102.46(b), we
accept them because the General Counsel’s brief sufficiently des-
ignates the portions of the record that General Counsel relies on to
support the exceptions. United Merchants, 284 NLRB 135 fn. 1
(1987). Accordingly, the Respondent’s motion is denied.
2 The Charging Parties have excepted to some of the judge’s credi-
bility findings. 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.
We do not rely on the judge’s statements in reference to the de-
mand for a respirator by employee Patterson that ‘‘it is disingenuous
of two habitual smokers to even care about carcinogens.’’ We find
it is reasonable for any person, including any who smokes, to be
concerned about securing the proper safety equipment before enter-
ing a potentially hazardous work environment.
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent did not act un-
lawfully with respect to the alleged discriminatees who massed at
the Respondent’s gate, we find it unnecessary to rely on the judge’s
statement that it cannot be determined whether these alleged
discriminatees were legitimately seeking employment.
3 The judge inadvertently listed May 5 as a date that Kraus missed
work. The absentee record (R. Exh. 21) indicates that the correct
date is May 15.
4 The collective-bargaining agreement has two provisions dealing
with prohibition on work stoppages. Sec. 13 provides:
Section 13.1, Definition of Grievances. Should differences
arise as to the meaning and application of a provision of this
Agreement, an earnest effort will be made to settle such dif-
ferences immediately in the following manner, during which
time there shall be no suspensions, lockouts, interruptions or im-
peding of work, work stoppages, strikes, sympathy strikes, or
other interferences with efficient operations.
Sec. 18 provides:
Section 18.1. Since adequate grievance procedures are pro-
vided in this Agreement and since binding arbitration has been
agreed to, the Union agrees that it will not engage in, encourage,
sanction, or suggest strikes, slowdowns, sympathy strikes, mass
resignations, mass absenteeism, or any other similar action
which would involve a work stoppage that may disturb or inter-
fere with the orderly conduct of the Employer’s operations.
Zurn Nepco and United Building and Construction
Trades Council of Camden and Vicinity and its
Member Local Unions (UBCTC) and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
AFL–CIO. Cases 4–CA–19725, 4–CA–19725–3,
4–CA–19725–4, and 4–CA–20187
March 23, 1995
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND COHEN
On February 1, 1994, Administrative Law Judge
H.E. Lott issued the attached decision. The Charging
Parties and the General Counsel filed exceptions and
supporting briefs. The Respondent filed separate briefs
responding to the Charging Parties’ and General Coun-
sel’s exceptions and supporting briefs. The Respondent
filed a motion to dismiss the exceptions filed by the
General Counsel. The General Counsel filed an opposi-
tion to Respondent’s motion to dismiss exceptions and
amended exceptions, and a reply brief.
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 exceptions1 and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions as modified, and to adopt the rec-
ommended Order.
The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s dismis-
sal of the allegation that employee Ronald Kraus was
unlawfully terminated because he refused to cross a
picket line. We agree with the judge for the following
reasons.
Sometime in June 1991, the UBCTC established a
picket line at the Pedricktown jobsite to protest what
it alleged were the Respondent’s unfair labor practices
in terminating and refusing to hire employees. The
sign said only ‘‘Zurn Nepco, Unfair Labor Practices’’
and stated the name of the Camden County Construc-
tion and Building Trades Council as the picketing
union. Kraus testified that he refused to cross the pick-
et line and that he telephoned the Respondent’s facility
to inform them that he would not cross. Kraus was ter-
minated on June 26 for excessive absenteeism. The ab-
sentee record entered into the record shows that Kraus
missed work on May 15,3 June 5, 17–20, and 24–26.
The Respondent contends that Kraus, in refusing to
cross the picket line to report to work, was acting in
violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. The
Respondent points to the project agreement between it
and the Steelworkers Union containing no-strike provi-
sions,4 and to an arbitrator’s decision dated June 20,
1991, deciding that the employees violated the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement when they refused to cross
the Charging Parties’ picket line. The relevant portions
of the arbitrator’s decision are as follows:
Based upon the testimony and evidence pre-
sented at the hearing, the Arbitrator finds that
(United Steelworkers, Local 15024) shop stew-
ards, Robert Shelton and Daniel Smith, did in fact
improperly advise members of Local 15024 not to
cross the Camden County Building Trades picket
line.
. . . .
812 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 The arbitrator, in his decision, refers to the Local 15024 stewards
as having urged union members not to cross the picket line. Further,
he inexplicably refers to the obligation of only Local 15024 mem-
bers to return to work and he makes no reference to unit members
who were not members of Local 15024. However, Kraus was a
member of Local 15024 and therefore covered by the arbitrator’s
award.
6 There is no contention that the picket line was caused by Re-
spondent’s violation of Sec. 8(a)(2) and (1) in ‘‘assisting the Steel-
workers in the signing of dues checkoff authorizations.’’
7 Chairman Gould expresses no view on the continued viability of
Olin Corp., supra.
Member Stephens agrees that deferral to the award is appropriate
under both the majority and dissenting views in Olin Corp., supra,
regarding burden of proof, i.e., he is satisfied that there has been an
affirmative showing that all the standards of Spielberg Mfg. Co., 122
NLRB 1080 (1955), have been met.
8 There is nothing to suggest that they protested that representa-
tion.
The Agreement between the parties is clear and
requires members of Local 15024 to report for
work. If they do not, they will be subject to ap-
propriate discipline, up to and including dis-
charge.
Accordingly, in consonance with the proof, and
upon all the foregoing, the undersigned Arbitrator
hereby renders, decides, determines, and issues
the following:
AWARD
1. The failure of members Local 15024 to re-
port for work on the after June 17, 1991, was a
violation of Section 13 of the Agreement.
2. All members of Local 15024 not presently
reporting for work will do so no later than Mon-
day, June 24, 1991. Failure of any member of
Local 15024 employed by Nepco to report for
work on or after June 24, 1991, will subject that
employee to discipline up to and including dis-
charge without further recourse to the grievance
procedure of the Agreement.
Thus, the arbitrator concluded that the employees
honoring of the picket line,5 at the urging of the Steel-
workers’ stewards, violated the no-strike provisions of
the collective-bargaining agreement. He further con-
cluded that those employees on strike who failed to re-
port to work on or after June 24, 1991, were subject
to discharge. Kraus admittedly failed to report for
work on and after June 24, 1991, and, as a result,
under the terms of the arbitration award, was subject
to discharge.
The Charging Parties urge that the Board should not
defer to the arbitrator’s award because the strike was
in protest of the Respondent’s unfair labor practices in
discharging and refusing to hire employees. Because
we adopt the judge’s finding that since the Respondent
did not commit any such violations,6 there is no basis
for this contention.
The Charging Parties further assert that the arbitra-
tion award involved different unions, different parties,
and lacks sufficient parallelism to be entitled to def-
erence by the Board. We disagree. The arbitration
award was the result of an arbitration proceeding
brought under the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement involving the parties to that agreement. It
dealt with whether its provisions prohibited the em-
ployees in the unit, including Kraus, from refusing to
cross the Charging Parties’ picket line. The arbitrator’s
interpretation that it does contain such a prohibition is
a reasonable interpretation. In these circumstances, we
see no basis for rejecting the arbitrator’s interpretation
of the collective-bargaining agreement. Olin Corp., 268
NLRB 573 (1984).7
We recognize that the arbitration proceeding in-
volved only the Respondent and Steelworkers Local
15024; it did not involve the Charging Parties herein.
However, the Charging Parties are acting on behalf of
the employees involved herein, and those employees
are represented, under Section 9, by Steelworkers
Local 15024. Thus, the employees, whose interests are
at stake, were represented in the arbitration proceed-
ing.8 In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate
to defer to the arbitral award. Compare Health Care
Employees District 1199E, 238 NLRB 9, 14 (1978);
Masters, Mates & Pilots, 220 NLRB 164, 168 (1975).
The General Counsel urges that Kraus’ failure to re-
port on and after June 24 did not violate the no-strike
provisions because the collective-bargaining agreement
was violated only if Kraus’ conduct was authorized or
encouraged by the Steelworkers. The General Counsel
urges that the Respondent made no such showing and
that after the arbitrator issued his award, the Steel-
workers’ stewards urged Kraus to return. The arbitrator
found, however, that the stewards, prior to June 20, did
encourage members of Local 15024 not to cross the
picket line. Although the arbitrator does not specifi-
cally name any employees who were encouraged,
Kraus was a member of Local 15024 and therefore in-
cluded in the general group that the Steelworkers’
stewards were encouraging to honor the picket line.
The arbitrator further found that all refusals by striking
employees to return to work on and after June 24 vio-
lated the no-strike provisions of the contract and that
they would be subject to discipline, including dis-
charge. We find no adequate reason to reject the arbi-
trator’s determination that under the terms of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement these employees, includ-
ing Kraus, were required to return to work on June 24,
and that if any of them failed to do so they could be
discharged.
The General Counsel, relying on NLRB v. Magnavox
Co. of Tennessee, 415 U.S. 322 (1974), contends that
the no-strike provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement could not waive Kraus’ right not to cross
813ZURN NEPCO
9 Accordingly, we need not pass on whether a no-strike provision,
entered into as a part of a prehire agreement, can be used to prevent
employees from engaging in a work stoppage in support of a change
of representation.
10 Alliance Mfg. Co., 200 NLRB 697 (1972).
11 The Respondent also contended, and the judge found, that there
was no picket line present on June 24–26, when Kraus was absent.
In view of our findings above, we find it unnecessary to determine
whether the picket line was present on and after June 24.
1 Case 4–CB–6316 and complaint allegations 10 and 15 were sev-
ered by Order dated May 29, 1992.
the picket line because a union cannot waive the right
of employees to engage in activity designed to displace
it. The General Counsel urges that the picketing was
part of the Charging Parties’ organizational efforts and
that, in the context of an 8(f) prehire agreement, the
Respondent cannot use the no-strike clause to prevent
employees from refusing to cross the picket line. The
picket line here was in protest of the discharge and re-
fusal to hire employees. It was apparently perceived as
such because it was supported by at least two of the
Local 15024 stewards. In these circumstances, we find
that the no-strike provisions were not being used to
ban work stoppage whose principal objective was to
support a campaign to displace the Steelworkers.9
Accordingly, in agreement with the judge, we find
that Kraus did not comply with the terms of the arbi-
trator’s award requiring that he return to work on June
24 and that, under these circumstances, his conduct
was not protected.10 Therefore, the Respondent did not
act unlawfully when it discharged Kraus for the absen-
teeism resulting from his refusal to cross the Charging
Parties’ picket line.11
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Zurn Nepco, Redmond,
Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
William Slack Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Michael Towers, Charles Caulkins, and David Kresser,
Esqs., for the Respondent.
Michael Stapp, Esq., for the Charging Parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
H. E. LOTT, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
heard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on various dates from
June 1 to December 10, 1992, upon unfair labor practice
charges and amended charges1 filed by the Charging Parties
from April 19, 1991, to June 1, 1992. The last consolidated
complaint and amendment were filed on February 19 and
April 13, 1992.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Zurn Nepco (Zurn) is a Washington State corporation with
a place of business in Penns Grove, New Jersey. It is en-
gaged as a general contractor in the building and construction
industry. During the past year while it was engaged in the
construction of a cogeneration facility at a jobsite in
Pedricktown, New Jersey, it purchased and received at the
jobsite materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of New Jersey.
Although Respondent admitted that the Steelworkers and
the Boilermakers Unions are labor organizations, it did not
admit that the Construction Trades Council of Camden
(UBCTC) (the Council or UBCTC) has that status. Undis-
puted evidence was offered that the Council is comprised of
29 local unions which represent various types of construction
employees. The Council holds weekly meetings attended by
representatives of local unions who elect the council mem-
bers. Council members negotiate labor agreements with var-
ious employer contractors and these agreements must be ap-
proved by council members.
The Council is usually listed as the contracting party.
Council members resolve jurisdictional disputes and other
work related problems. They also secure employment for
local union members. Local unions must seek council ap-
proval before engaging in picketing within the Council’s ge-
ographic jurisdiction.
Respondent admits and I find that Zurn Nepco is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits and I find
that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and the
United Steelworkers of America are labor organizations with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I also find that
the United Building and Construction Trades Council of
Camden and Vicinity and its Member Local Unions is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent builds cogeneration plants and until 1988 was
known as Atlantic Gulf Western. It is headquartered in
Redmond, Washington, and has as many as eight projects in
progress throughout the United States employing 1300 em-
ployees. In early 1990 Zurn entered into an agreement with
Cogeneration Partners of America to construct a cogeneration
power plant at a B. F. Goodrich site in Pedricktown, New
Jersey. The initial phase of the project was subcontracted by
Zurn to local contractors who had labor agreements with var-
ious craft unions that were members of UBCTC. Union labor
was required by the project agreement. Approximately 50
percent of the construction work was performed under these
contracts and this work was completed in early 1991. In Feb-
ruary 1991, Zurn began the next phase of construction using
direct-hire employees. The project was completed in early
1992.
814 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Alleged Refusal to Hire UBCTC Members
In September 1990, Zurn contacted UBCTC and entered
into negotiations with the Council for a project agreement
covering direct-hire employees. These negotiations were un-
successful. In a letter dated October 18, 1990, Council Presi-
dent Joseph DiRenzo informed Zurn that the membership
had rejected the Company’s proposal saying that only the
UBCTC standard contract would suffice and they would ac-
cept nothing less.
After negotiations with UBCTC broke down, Zurn con-
tacted the United Steelworkers of America and Local 15024.
The parties entered negotiations and signed a labor agree-
ment on January 17, 1991. The labor agreement is signed by
the International president, other International officers, and
Manuel Mirailh, district director of Local 15024, located in
Edison, New Jersey.
The labor agreement recognized the Steelworkers as exclu-
sive bargaining representative, ‘‘for all persons employed by
the employer on the covered job site.’’ Jurisdiction covered
all new construction performed by craft employees at the
Employer’s project.
The relevant provisions of the agreement are as follows:
Section 5, Union Security: Employees employed by
the employer for a period of eight (8) days continuously
or cumulatively, after completion of their probationary
period as set forth herein in Section 9 shall be or be-
come on the said eighth (8th) day of employment or
eight (8) days after the effective date of this agreement,
whichever is later, members of the Union and shall re-
main members of the Union as a condition of continued
employment. Membership in the Union shall be avail-
able upon terms and qualifications the same as those
applicable at such times to other applicants for mem-
bership to the Union.
. . . .
Section 5.1, Checkoff: The membership dues, includ-
ing initiation fees and assessments of the United Steel-
workers of America, treasurer of the Union shall be de-
ducted from the wages of such employees who have
filed proper assignments with the company and shall be
remitted by the company to the United Steelworkers of
America, AFL–CIO, c/o Edgar Vall, International
Secretary/Treasurer, 5 Gateway Center, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15222.
Section 6, Hiring: The Union agrees to furnish, upon
request by the Employer, through a referral procedure,
duly qualified journeymen and apprentice workers in
sufficient numbers as may be necessary to properly
execute work contracted for by the employer in the
manner and under the conditions specified in this agree-
ment. The employer shall be the sole judge of all appli-
cants and retains the right to reject any applicants for
employment referred by the Union or through the refer-
ral procedure.
(A) The Union agrees that any journeymen or other
workers referred for work shall have the minimum
qualifications and/or licenses or credentials set by the
company, if any.
(B) The Union agrees that should it be unable to
refer workers with the appropriate credentials within 24
hours, the employer may seek workers from any other
source.
. . . .
(D) The Union represents that it administers and
controls the referrals and it is agreed that these referrals
will be made in a non-discriminatory manner in full
compliance with federal, state and local laws and regu-
lations which require equal employment opportunities
and non-discrimination. Referrals shall not be effected
in any way by rules, regulations, bylaws, constitutional
provisions or any other aspects of union membership,
policies or requirements.
. . . .
Section 9, Probationary Period: It is agreed that new
employees shall be considered probationary employees
for the first seventy-five (75) days of their employment.
In 1987 when Michael Mace assumed the job of manager
of human resources, he developed a companywide priority
hiring policy which is as follows:
(1) Consideration is first given to prior Zurn employ-
ees.
(2) Consideration is next given to referrals by Zurn
managers and supervisors.
(3) Consideration is next given to referrals by current
employees, particularly experienced journeymen in the
craft needed.
(4) Consideration is next given to unknown quan-
tities with appropriate skills and experience.
According to Mace, this policy was disseminated to all
personnel supervisors, including Personnel Supervisor B. J.
Malone at that time. It is referred to in a memo to resident
managers dated July 13, 1989, and incorporated into the field
policy and procedure manual in February 1992.
B. J. Malone testified that he, Project Manager Leon
Grier, and Administrative Manager James Kunkel met with
Manny Mirailh of Steelworkers Local 15024 and that Malone
was led to believe that Local 15024 would be able to fulfill
Zurn’s labor requirements. However, this did not happen and
Mirailh referred Zurn to Ed Overby, who is president of
Steelworkers Local 14614 in Charleston, West Virginia. Ma-
lone and Grier traveled to Charleston, West Virginia, and
met with Overby whose local would be the primary source
of labor for the project. Zurn established a drug testing and
weld testing facility in that town for referrals. Since Malone
had no prior experience with labor agreements, he depended
upon Overby to help him to administer the agreement.
Malone was responsible for hiring all construction employ-
ees for the Pedricktown project and in that capacity he fol-
lowed the labor agreement and the Company’s priority hiring
policy. Normally Malone would fax an employee requisition
to the Steelworkers’ locals. He also faxed or telephoned his
staffing requirements to Local 15024. The local would ap-
prove the fax and return to Malone whether or not it could
refer an employee. From January 21 to March 6, 1991, Steel-
workers Local 14614 furnished 34 of the first 39 employees
hired. Local 15024 informed Malone that it could furnish no
employees. If the locals could not furnish the requested em-
ployees, Malone invoked the 24-hour rule and hired in ac-
cordance with company priority policy. From March 7 to
April 29, 1991, Malone hired 27 former employees, 21 refer-
815ZURN NEPCO
2 Mirailh’s son died at this time.
rals from Local 14614, 21 cold calls at site, 10 employees
from New Jersey Job Service, and 4 referrals from Zurn em-
ployees. At the beginning of May 1991, the Steelworkers had
exhausted their supply of labor.
Malone testified that when he could get no more employ-
ees from the Steelworkers, he followed the Company’s prior-
ity procedure. He used the following procedure for cold calls.
When a prospective employee called the jobsite, Malone
would conduct a short interview obtaining the caller’s name,
phone number, craft qualifications, and experience. If the
caller met the requirements for a current opening, he was in-
vited to the jobsite for an interview by Malone and the craft
superintendent or a physical examination, drug and weld test
was scheduled. If all tests were passed, the employee was
given an orientation session on his first day of employment.
Bonnie Bucco testified that she was the receptionist at the
Pedricktown jobsite from October 1990 to October 1991 and
followed definite instructions given to her by her supervisor,
Jim Kunkel. For job seekers calling in, she would transfer
the call to Malone. If he was not available, she would take
down the callers name, telephone number, and craft and put
the message in Malone’s mail slot. She never took down
union affiliation nor did she ever discuss UBCTC with Ma-
lone. When she received more telephone calls than she could
handle, she referred the excess to Manny Mirailh’s local
union. She began this procedure in February or March 1991
and continued it until she was laid off.
When walk-ins approach the security guard, he was in-
structed to give them Malone’s telephone number. No walk-
ins were given employment applications. Company procedure
was to give employment applications to employees on their
first day of employment at the orientation session.
Malone testified that he did not interview job seekers who
arrived at the gate without an appointment because he
couldn’t do that and his other job duties.
According to Malone, job service of New Jersey was con-
tacted before Zurn entered into a labor agreement with the
Steelworkers. After he could get no more help from the
Steelworkers, Malone hired 13 employees from this service.
He hired five helpers and six journeymen before April 18,
1991, and two helpers after that date.
On March 7, 1991, Boilermakers International Representa-
tive James Bragan, their attorney, and UBCTC President Jo-
seph DiRenzo met and decided under their ‘‘Fight Back’’
strategy to organize the Pedricktown jobsite. On April 16,
1991, DiRenzo sent a letter to Zurn stating that it was en-
gaged in organizing activity at the jobsite. The letter listed
certain employees who were organizers for UBCTC. Among
those listed were Dennis Deacon and Ernest Patterson.
On April 18, 1991, Bragan, DiRenzo, and several local
business managers representing 130 members of UBCTC,
who were also present, appeared at the jobsite gate. Bragan
told the guard they were from the building trades and asked
him to get B. J. Malone because the members would like to
file employment applications. The guard informed Bragan
that the Company was not taking applications. Bragan then
circulated a petition which was signed by 131 members giv-
ing their name, telephone number, local union number, and
craft. This petition was handed to the guard with a letter
from DiRenzo stating that they represented the local crafts-
men who were seeking employment at Zurn Nepco and that
employment applications should be provided to all craftsmen
requesting them. He requested that additional applications be
sent to the Building Trades office for distribution to inter-
ested craftsmen.
On April 19, 1991, UBCTC filed a petition for an election
and charges alleging refusal to hire on April 18, 1991. From
April 19 to 30, 1991, three business agents of Building
Trades locals called the Zurn jobsite. They identified them-
selves and asked to speak to Malone. Only Iron Workers’
business agent, Sweeney, spoke to Malone who referred him
to Steelworkers Local 15024 Director Mirailh. Sweeney
talked to Mirailh who promised to get back to him about em-
ployment for Sweeney’s members, but never did. Carpenters’
business agent, James Johnson, talked to Mirailh who stated
that he would like to help him but could not do so because
of the unfair labor practice charges filed by UBCTC.
On April 23, 1991, Resident Manager Leon Grier issued
a memorandum stating that all hiring for the jobsite was to
be in accordance with Zurn’s Steelworkers contract and that
all job seekers were to be sent to Steelworkers Representa-
tive Mirailh. After April 23, 1991, the security guard at the
jobsite distributed this memo to job seekers who appeared at
the gate.
On April 30, 1991, Bragan approached the gate with
UBCTC business agents along with William Creden, who is
assistant to the director of organizing for the Boilermakers.
Creden asked the guard for employment applications. The
guard presented Creden with the April 23 memo. Creden re-
quested 200 copies which were provided. Another list of
members was prepared to show who was present. These lists
contained 180 names.
On May 1, 1991, Grier sent Dorenzo a letter complaining
about the mass ‘‘applicants’’ at the gate and informing him
of the labor agreement the Company had with the Steel-
workers Union. Grier said that because of his small staff, the
Company couldn’t process 50 applicants at one time even if
they were accepting applications at the gate. Grier told him
they were referring applicants at the gate to the Steelworkers
and asked him to do the same.
On May 1, 1991, Bragan led a caravan of over 100 union
members to the Steelworkers’ office in Edison, New Jersey.
Bragan entered the office and announced to secretary
Francine Grocki that he represented the Camden Trades
Council and had over 100 members outside that wanted to
apply for work at the Pedricktown project. Bragan told her
that Zurn had referred them to the Steelworkers and he want-
ed job applications or he wanted his members to sign a refer-
ral list. Eventually, Grocki had all the members sign a refer-
ral list. After May 1, she took down information about job
seekers inquiring about employment at Zurn. However, she
never referred any job seekers to Zurn although she con-
stantly received job requisitions from Malone. She did not
tell Malone or anyone at Zurn about the referral list or the
subsequent job seekers who called in.
On May 13, 1991, the Steelworkers’ attorney wrote a letter
to UBCTC’s president which states:
In light of Mirailh personal tragedy,2 I believe it im-
portant that I advise you of Local 15024’s position.
On or about May 1, 1991, 111 of your members ar-
rived en masse at the Steelworkers’ office in Edison.
816 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The sheer number of applicants and their behavior in-
timidated the secretaries. Further, the small size of the
office is inadequate to handle that number of job appli-
cants.
The secretaries, doing the best they could do under
the circumstances, took each individual’s name and
have now created a computerized alphabetical listing
that is of little or no use to us. We do not know the
sequence—who applied in what order—nor do we
know each person’s skill. Accordingly, if any individual
wishes, he may come back to re-apply.
Local 15024 truly wants to provide jobs pursuant to
its project agreement with Zurn Nepco. However, we
simply can not function if the applicants do not act rea-
sonably and responsibly.
Accordingly, in the future, kindly see that no more
than five individuals report per hour. This is necessary
to provide for as little disruption as possible. We are
aware of our legal obligations, but we can not fulfill
them, if applicants appear en masse and intimidate our
secretaries.
On May 24, Dorenzo sent a response to the above letter
which reads in pertinent part:
Because of the fact that your secretaries created a com-
puterized alphabetical listing of no apparent use to you,
is your problem. The referrals were handed to your sec-
retary in order with Jay Bragan, a pipe welder, fitter on
top of the list. This statement, on your part, seems to
be another evasive way of avoiding the issue of hiring
or considering for hire building trades union affiliated
people. The fact of the matter is that we signed your
referral list, and each man listed his local union number
and what job he was applying for. You obviously are
not providing jobs pursuant to your project agreement
with Zurn Nepco and, I believe, are continuing to vio-
late federal law.
The letter was never sent to Zurn nor were Zurn officials
aware of its contents. However, they were made aware of the
situation at the Steelworkers’ union hall on May 1, 1991.
All three job applicants who told Malone they were mem-
bers of the Building Trades Union were hired, following the
cold call procedure. One of these employees, Robert Larriu,
was asked by Malone if he knew of any workers he could
recommend. Larriu referred four or five workers to Malone,
all of whom were hired.
In addition to those three, Zurn hired Gerald Slavin, orga-
nizer for the sheet metal workers, Bill Murphy, a member of
the Boilermakers, Earnest Patterson and Michael Manculich,
both paid organizers for the Boilermakers, and others who
testified they were hired in accordance with Zurn’s stated
hiring procedure.
From April 29, 1991, to the end of the job. Zurn hired 35
former employees, 14 employees from Local 14614, 69 em-
ployees at site cold calls, and 42 employees referred by Zurn
employees.
C. Alleged 8(a)(2) Violation
The union-security clause in the labor agreement requires
all employees to become members of the union after 8 days
of continuous employment or 8 days after their probationary
period (75 days). Before Zurn began hiring, Malone met with
Mirailh who gave him Steelworkers membership cards and
instructed him in the procedure to follow in getting the cards
completed. Mirailh instructed Malone to have employees fill
out the union card when they were hired or 83 days later and
that dues should be checked off in accordance with instruc-
tions on the authorization card.
The General Counsel offered the following witnesses:
Milton Harrison testified that he was hired in March 1991
and at his orientation Malone distributed Steelworkers appli-
cations. Harrison told Malone he belonged to a labor union
at the shipyard and Malone stated this was a Steelworkers
job and he had to be a Steelworker to work it. Malone also
said he had to become a Steelworkers member after a certain
number of days.
Gerald Slavin, sheet metal worker, organizer and Boiler-
makers member Bill Murphy testified they were hired on
April 2, 1991, and Malone told them they had to join the
Steelworkers to work the job. That Steelworkers membership
was required on the job. Murphy testified that Malone said
not to fill out the back of the application until he paid the
initiation fee.
UBCTC Organizers Dennis Deacon, John Harkin, and Er-
nest Patterson testified that when they were hired on April
15, 1991, Malone instructed them to complete the dues-
checkoff authorization portion of the Steelworkers’ card.
Harkin and Deacon recalled Malone saying they didn’t have
to complete the membership portion until after 70 days of
employment. Patterson remembered Malone saying they
could complete the Steelworkers application but not to sign
it.
Thomas Lucas of Boilermakers Local 667 was hired on
April 16, 1991, and testified he completed dues-checkoff au-
thorization side of the Steelworkers card and completed the
other side of the card but did not sign it.
Carpenter’s organizers Ron Kraus and Ron Jernegan testi-
fied that at their orientation on April 2, 1991, Malone told
employees that he was being given a hard time by the Trades
Council and that employees either sign the Steelworkers’
cards or leave.
IBEW member Robert Schumacker testified that when he
was hired on August 7, 1991, Malone told employees there
would be a $100 initiation fee and that there was a 30-day
probationary period before they got their Steelworkers cards
which was their (Zurn’s) way of getting around the Building
Trades.
B. J. Malone testified that during the orientation sessions
he told employees to fill out the Steelworkers cards if they
wanted to. He couldn’t force them to because they had 83
days before initiation fee was due. Some employees ques-
tioned whether they had to sign a Steelworkers card. They
didn’t have to sign the card if they didn’t want to. But he
did tell them if the initiation fee was not paid by the 83rd
day, the Union would instruct him to terminate them. Malone
denied telling Jurnegan or Kraus that if employees didn’t
sign a Steelworkers’ card, they should leave. Malone further
testified that he always mentioned the 83 days when talking
about the Steelworkers’ application cards and never men-
tioned the Camden building trade.
817ZURN NEPCO
3 General Counsel witness Thomas Lucas does not remember any
supervisor being present, other witnesses did.
D. Alleged 8(a)(1) Discharge of Patterson
Ernest Patterson was a member of the Boilermakers Union
and was a paid union organizer at the Pedricktown project.
He had frequently been named in unfair labor practice
charges filed by the Boilermakers in connection with its
‘‘fight-back’’ program. Patterson had worked for Zurn in
1991 in Sterling, Connecticut. Bragan asked Patterson to par-
ticipate in organizing in the Pedricktown project.
On April 15, 1991, Patterson and another Boilermakers or-
ganizer, Michael Manculich, were hired. Patterson and
Manculich were being taken to their foreman, Howard
Chavis, when Foreman Mike Mills saw them and said he
thought Marty Plachard black-balled him in Sterling, Con-
necticut. Mills said evidently he didn’t but he was going to.
Manculich heard essentially the same thing.
Mills testified that he knew Patterson from the Sterling
project because he got him the job. He also knew Patterson
was discharged from that job for refusing to perform any
work. When he saw Patterson at the Pedricktown project, he
was surprised and said to him, ‘‘I figured you were black-
balled.’’ Mills denied saying he would blackball Patterson.
Patterson also testified that 4 days after he was hired, he
overheard Foreman Chavis tell Foreman Frank Quigley that
Patterson was a troublemaker. No one else heard this con-
versation.
Chavis, who was not employed by Zurn at the time of the
trial, denied having such a conversation with Quigley. He
also denies saying Patterson was a good employee which is
also alleged by Patterson because Patterson had a poor at-
tendance record.
Patterson testified that on the evening of April 29 he ob-
served two employees in the boiler welding steel plates over
insulation. Foreman Chavis was nearby.3 Patterson told these
employees the insulation was carcinogenic and urged them to
obtain proper safety equipment.
On April 30 Foreman Chavis, noting that Patterson had
previously complained about not being assigned Boiler-
makers work, assigned him and Manculich to weld steel
plates over insulation in the boiler.
Patterson testified that he requested proper safety equip-
ment such as a respirator and protective suit. Chavis stated
that he did not think any respirators were available but he
would get Patterson and his helper a dust mask. When Pat-
terson asked to be assigned a different job if proper safety
equipment was not available, Chavis stated he was, ‘‘sick of
this shit’’ and left the area.
Chavis returned with Boilermaker Superintendent Richard
Rhodes. When Patterson again refused to work without prop-
er safety equipment, Rhodes summoned Superintendent
David Gale who discharged Patterson because he again re-
fused to work.
Patterson testified that Gale told him the only reason Pat-
terson was there with the Boilermakers was to cause him
problems and that Patterson was a troublemaker. Patterson
also testified that he is a regular cigarette smoker and that
cigarettes contain carcinogens which are damaging to his
health. Michael Manculich who is also a boilermaker and
cigarette smoker testified that he heard these conversations.
He also testified that he had worked with Patterson both be-
fore and after Patterson’s discharge and that he and Patterson
read each other’s affidavits before testifying. He also stated
many times that Patterson wanted safety equipment for him-
self before going to work in the boiler.
Howard Chavis testified that Patterson was not assigned to
his crew on April 29 and he did not overhear Patterson say
anything about safety.
Foreman Chavis, Boilermaker Superintendent Rhodes and
Project Superintendent Gale all testified that on April 30 Pat-
terson was assigned to work in the boiler structure with other
employees. He requested a respirator from Chavis who went
to the safety department to get it. Chavis was told by safety
personnel to send Patterson over so he could be properly
fitted for the respirator in accordance with Zurn policy and
Federal regulation. Respirators were available and Chavis de-
nies telling Patterson only dusk masks were available. Chavis
met Rhodes on the way to the safety department and told
him what he was doing.
Rhodes then met Patterson in the smoking pen and asked
him why he was not working. Patterson said he needed a res-
pirator but said nothing about safety conditions in the boiler.
When Patterson was informed that Chavis was on his way
to the safety office to check on respirators, Patterson told
Rhodes that their was no need, he wasn’t going in the boiler
anyway.
Rhodes contacted Gale who came to the smoking pen.
Rhodes told Gale that Patterson had refused to be fitted for
a respirator. Gale asked Patterson if that was true and Patter-
son said yes, that he wouldn’t use a respirator even if of-
fered.
Gale asked Patterson if he was going to return to work and
Patterson said no, he was going to stay in the smoking pen.
Gale then discharged Patterson. The same day Rhodes made
a written memorandum to the file (R. Exh. 27) which states
similar facts. These witnesses assert that Patterson did not
mention anything about a respirator, nor did he mention
working some place else or that the boiler was unsafe.
E. Alleged Discriminatory Discharge of Dennis Deacon
and Ronald Kraus
Dennis Deacon testified he is a member of the Boiler-
makers Union and was requested by Business Agent Joseph
Mangione to seek employment at Zurn so that he could help
organize the employees. At orientation on April 15, 1991,
Malone asked them to fill out the front of the card (checkoff
authorization) but not the back. In 70 days, they would be
required to sign it if, ‘‘we decided to join the Steelworkers’
Union.’’
Deacon stated that on April 22, he was told to report to
Malone who told him that if he didn’t sign the card and join
the Steelworkers, he couldn’t work there. Deacon refused to
sign and was fired. The next day Deacon returned to the job-
site to pick up his tools and his foreman, Terry Bennett,
asked him why he was not working. Deacon told him he had
been fired and Bennett said nothing.
B. J. Malone testified he received a telephone call from
Manny Mirailh who asked him for all the Steelworkers’
cards that had been signed. In going through the cards, he
noticed that Deacon’s card was not signed. On April 22 Ma-
lone sent for Deacon and told him he hadn’t signed his Steel-
workers’ card. Deacon refused to sign it. Malone testified
that he told Deacon that he had to sign it sooner or later.
818 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He had 83 days. Deacon said he was not signing the card.
Malone said, ‘‘fine but after eight-three days, if you don’t
sign it and you don’t pay the initiation fee, you will be ter-
minated.’’ Malone denied pulling his brass which means
automatic termination. He also denies telling Deacon he was
fired. Malone stated that he has no authority to discharge
employees.
Terry Bennett testified that he saw Deacon on April 23,
and Deacon told him he had been fired. Bennett immediately
went to Malone and asked him if he had discharged Deacon.
Malone said no. Bennett returned to Deacon and informed
him that he had not been discharged and that he should go
to work. Deacon told Bennett that he, and employee Harkins
had a weld test with another employer later that day. He
never returned to work and was discharged on April 25 for
failure to come to work. This is reported on his termination
notice dated April 25, 1991.
John Harkins, a Boilermakers Union member and an em-
ployee of Zurn, was with Deacon when Malone talked to
him. He stated that Malone told him that he couldn’t work
there if they didn’t sign Steelworkers cards. Both refused to
sign cards, but Harkins does not confirm that Malone fired
them. Harkins further testified that they went to the jobsite
the next day and were told that it was okay to work. Harkins
said he was sick and went home.
Ronald Kraus was a paid union organizer for Carpenters’
Local 1578 while working for Zurn. He was referred to Zurn
by the Steelworkers and signed a Steelworkers’ card during
orientation. His main purpose in working for Zurn was to see
how Zurn was hiring and what type of people the Company
was hiring.
Kraus testified that UBCTC established a picket line at the
Pedricktown jobsite in June 1991. He called Malone’s sec-
retary and told her he would not cross the picket line. He
never returned to work except to pick up some tools some
2 weeks later.
Respondent contends they discharged Kraus on June 26
because he never returned to work after the picketing ceased.
His absentee record shows he missed work on May 5 and
on June 5, 17–20, and 24–26.
Respondent offered into evidence the project agreement
containing a no-strike clause. It further offered an arbitrator’s
decision dated June 20, interpreting this clause as requiring
the members of the Steelworkers to report to work. The arbi-
trator further stated that if members did not report to work
by June 24, 1991, they could be discharged. Kraus ignored
this ruling although he was a Steelworkers member and Re-
spondent asserts this reason alone justified his discharge.
F. Other 8(a)(1) Allegations
Bill Murphy, an employee of Respondent from April 1,
1991, to the last of May 1991 testified that sometime during
that period his supervisor, Rick Adams, approached him
about taking a pipe welding test. Murphy said there were 100
pipe welders at the gate and why didn’t he hire them. Ac-
cording to Murphy, Adams said those men were here to or-
ganize the job and he wasn’t going to hire them.
Charles ‘‘Rick’’ Adams testified that he was pipe foreman
at the Pedricktown project and had been a member of the
Plumbers’ and Pipefitters’ Union and he had no objection to
the Building Trades Union. He further denied saying to any-
one, including Murphy, that he would not hire Building
Trades supporters.
III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Alleged Refusal to Hire UBCTC Members
Zurn’s hiring procedure was in place long before the
Pedricktown project began and I find that Respondent fol-
lowed that procedure in almost all cases. Moreover, I find
that under the collective-bargaining agreement, preference
had to be given to Steelworkers referrals. I further find that
Respondent followed its ‘‘cold call’’ procedure and when
UBCTC members followed that procedure, they were consid-
ered for employment or hired. The evidence discloses that
many Building Trades members were hired, including orga-
nizers when they followed the correct hiring procedure.
I find that Steelworkers Local 15024 did not refer UBCTC
members and Respondent can not be held responsible for this
failing.
When UBCTC members massed at Respondent’s gate on
April 18 and 30, 1991, they were represented by UBCTC of-
ficers. I find that Respondent had no obligation to deal with
these officers. In fact, it would have been in violation of the
labor agreement with the Steelworkers had they done so.
Moreover, Respondent was not equipped to handle that many
applicants. Finally, handing a list of job applicants to Re-
spondent did not comply with any procedure established by
Respondent.
I also find that employment applications were only distrib-
uted at time of hire, during orientation.
It should also be noted that most discriminatees did not
apply for a job individually but acted through an official of
their union. Since this method was precluded by the labor
agreement, it could be concluded that they never applied for
a job with Respondent. Since almost all discriminatees never
testified, it can not be determined whether or not they were
legitimately seeking employment.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent met its Wright Line
burden by establishing that it would not have hired these
UBCTC members, notwithstanding their union affiliation. In
summary, I find clear evidence that had a large group of
nonunion jobseekers massed in front of Respondent’s gate,
they would have been treated in the same manner that was
accorded the UBCTC members. Therefore, I recommend dis-
missal of this allegation.
B. Alleged 8(a)(2) Violation
General Counsel’s brief states the issue relating to this al-
legation as whether or not Respondent coerced employees
into signing dues-checkoff authorizations. The checkoff au-
thorization in this case is the standard variety and there is
no allegation that it is unlawful. There also is no allegation
that anyone was forced to join the Union in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act. This allegation deals solely with dues
checkoff.
In support of this allegation, General Counsel presented
witnesses whose testimony was confusing, contradictory, and
in some cases supportive of Respondent’s defense. Therefore,
I credit Malone’s testimony and find that he did not coerce
anybody into signing a dues-checkoff authorization. How-
ever, after reviewing the testimony of Malone, as well as
General Counsel’s witnesses, I find that during orientation,
819ZURN NEPCO
Malone routinely gave employees many forms to complete,
including the dues-checkoff authorization. Nor was any alter-
native form of payment mentioned. From the testimony I
conclude that it was expected that employees would sign the
authorization and, in fact, most did. However, I also find that
it was not a deliberate attempt to assist the Union. Malone
admitted he didn’t know what he was doing and looked to
the Union for guidance in this tangled area. I conclude, he
did the best he could under difficult circumstances. Unfortu-
nately, that’s not good enough.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by engaging in illegal assistance
in the signing of dues-checkoff authorizations. Mode O’Day
Co., 280 NLRB 253 (1987), modified at 290 NLRB 1234
(1988).
General Counsel, at page 19 of the transcript, requested as
a remedy merely a cease-and-desist order. Apparently all
other aspects of this allegation had been settled with the
Steelworkers’ Union. I would not recommend anything more
in any event.
C. Discharge of Patterson
After reviewing all the evidence and assessing the credibil-
ity of the witnesses, I credit the Respondent’s witnesses and
find that Patterson was discharged for insubordination and
not for any concerted activities. It is quite apparent, from the
facts, that Patterson did not care about working for Respond-
ent. What he cared about was organizing the employees. And
for that purpose he needed an issue and confrontation. Any
issue would due and if the facts didn’t fit the unfair labor
practice—change the facts and change the allegation. From
April 30, 1991, until January 13, 1992, the allegation was
discharged for union activities. After January 13, 1992, the
allegation changed to concerted activities. If this had been
just a rank-and-file employee, the change in allegations
would be understandable, but Patterson was an experienced
organizer and the facts were stretched to the breaking point
in order to fit the allegation.
Furthermore, I find that Patterson did not engage in con-
certed activities. He demanded a respirator for himself and
it really didn’t matter whether the Company provided it or
not, he wanted a confrontation. Moreover, it is disingenuous
of two habitual smokers to even care about carcinogens.
Therefore, I find that the testimony of Patterson and
Manculich and the others to be self-serving, untruthful and
not worthy of belief.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent satisfied its Wright
Line burden by establishing that it would have discharged
Patterson notwithstanding his alleged concerted activities and
recommend dismissal of this allegation.
D. The Discharge of Deacon and Kraus
I do not credit the uncorroborated testimony of Deacon
when he says he was discharged by Malone for refusing to
sign a Steelworkers’ card. Instead, I credit the testimony of
Malone and Bennett who were very credible witnesses. Even
John Harkins does not support Deacon’s testimony that he
was discharged. Moreover, on the facts given by Deacon,
Harkins, himself, was not discharged. He merely declared
himself sick and walked off.
Likewise, I find that Kraus simply failed to return to work
after the picket line was removed, in violation of the arbitra-
tor’s ruling and company policy. This ruling and policy ap-
plied to all Steelworkers members including Steelworkers
union stewards. Accordingly, I find that Respondent satisfied
its Wright Line burden of showing that it would have dis-
charged Kraus and Deacon notwithstanding their union ac-
tivities.
E. Other Alleged 8(a)(1) Activity
I discredited Patterson’s testimony for reasons stated above
and credit the denial of Mills and find that Mills did not
threaten to blackball Patterson.
I further find that the uncorroborated testimony of Patter-
son that Chavis called him a troublemaker is not credible. I
discredit the uncorroborated testimony of Bill Murphy over
the denial of Adams that he would never hire UBCTC mem-
bers.
In summary, I recommend dismissal of all 8(a)(1) allega-
tions.
F. Union Animus
General Counsel offered some evidence of union animus.
Much of it was not considered because of dismissal of the
8(a)(1) allegations. The remainder which consists of certain
remarks made against the Building Trades Council are far
overshadowed by the following Respondent conduct.
At the outset, Respondent sought out recognized and bar-
gained in good faith with UBCTC and the Steelworkers
Union. It signed a labor agreement with the Steelworkers and
abided by that agreement. In so doing, it had amicable rela-
tions with the Steelworkers Union. It appears that the
UBCTC did everything in its power to disrupt the project at
Pedricktown in order to gain recognition—something it had
in the first place.
Short of animus, it is understandable that Zurn manage-
ment vented its frustration at having its project turned into
a battleground.
Under the circumstances, I can not find, and the evidence
does not support a finding that Respondent harbored
antiunion animus.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Zurn Nepco, Inc. is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, United
Steelworkers of America, and the United Building and Con-
struction Trades Council of Camden are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Zurn Nepco violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2)
of the Act by assisting the Steelworkers Union in the signing
of dues-checkoff authorizations.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
5. All other allegations are dismissed.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to post an appropriate notice.
820 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 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.
5 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.’’
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, Zurn Nepco, Inc., Redmond, Washington,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Assisting the Steelworkers Union by encouraging our
employees to sign dues-checkoff authorization as part of our
employment procedure.
(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) Post at all your current projects copies of the attached
notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
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 assist the Steelworkers Union by encourag-
ing our employees to sign dues-checkoff authorizations as
part of our employment procedure.
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.
ZURN NEPCO, INC.