Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Randy Burnworth. Case 31- CA 7424 November 6. 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PIFNELI 0 AND TRUESDALE On June 27, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Rich- ard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and counsel for the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, except as modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Order. For the reasons stated by the Administrative Law Judge, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because its suspension of Randy Burnworth was motiviated by the protected concert- ed activity in which he engaged on September 30, 1977. Additionally, we find, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that Burnworth's suspen- sion on September 30 was unlawful in any event be- cause it was induced, at least in part, by his various protected concerted activities earlier that month. We do not, however, adopt the Administrative Law Judge's rationale which dismisses the Respon- dent's contention that Burnworth's September 30 re- fusal to work contravened the no-strike clause and thus was without protection. In our view, the Admin- istrative Law Judge's discussion on this argument is inapposite because Burnworth's actions on that date did not rise to the level of being a strike or a work stoppage. The record reveals that, on the day of his suspen- sion, Foreman Glen Marshall had assigned Burn- worth and a fellow workman, Andrew Bittner, the task of changing the filter bags on the pneumatic conveyor system in the Respondent's grain storage building. This job is considered an undesirable one because grain dust escaping the bags during the changing process completely covers those performing the work. Burnworth, aware that grain dust in sus- pension presents a danger of explosion, knew that ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. workmen in the grain house were conducting welding operations. Burnworth reminded Marshall of a previ- ous conversation between them regarding the safety of welding in the grain building and told him that "he might have to refuse to do the work." Marshall admonished Burnworth to inspect the grain building before making such a decision, to which Burnworth replied that even entering the building would be dan- gerous if welding was in progress. Approximately I hour later, having completed other work assigned them, Burnworth and Bittner in- formed Foremen Marshall and Bob Holzworth that thev were proceeding to the grain house and inquired whether the welding operations had been completed. Holzworth retorted that the assignment presented no danger. Burnworth, citing various of its sections, re- sponded that he believed that welding in the grain building violated the city's fire code. Holzworth stat- ed that he had spoken with Jim Turner, manager of industrial relations, who had assured him the work was safe. Burnworth and Bittner then proceeded to the grain house, agreeing that they would not work in the building should welding be in progress. Burnworth testified that when he arrived at the grain house, he found it freer of dust than he had ever seen it, and he noticed that all the windows had been opened to pro- vide maximum ventilation. He spoke with the weld- ers who were present and learned they would be fin- ished in 10 to 15 minutes; thereupon Burnworth and Bittner departed the building to wait.' Foreman Mar- shall, finding them outside the grain building, asked them why they were not at work, to which Burnworth replied that, because of the welding, it was hazardous to be in the building. Marshall recounted the safety precautions Respondent had taken in the building, but Burnworth and Bittner again refused to work while the welders were working. Marshall then took them to speak to Holzworth. who, after speaking with Burnworth, suspended him pursuant to the di- rection of Turner. We find no basis on these facts to conclude that Burnworth's actions amounted to a strike. The rec- ord presents no evidence that Burnworth intended his actions either to pressure Respondent to grant any concessions or to protest any of its policies. He and Bittner simply deferred execution of their assign- ment until the welders completed their work in the grain building, a period which was expected to be from 10 to 15 minutes. Similarly, we do not find that urnv.orth lestified thal he used Ihis time tor obtain materia.ls and equip- menl required to effect the assignment 207 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this act amounted to a work stoppage of the type contemplated by the no-strike clause, due to its brief duration and the failure of Respondent to show that it in any way interfered with production.2 Thus, we dismiss Respondent's contention on this point, but in so doing we do not rely on the rationale of the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. We affirm the conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in all other re- spects. 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, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 2See Shelry & Anderson Furniture Manufacture (Co., Inc. v. N . R B.. 497 F.2d 1200, 1203 (91h ('ir 1974). Empire Steel Manufaciuring (Conpany. Inc.. 234 NLRB 530. (1978). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RIKHARD J BOYCE. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on March 14, 15, and 16, 1978. The charge was filed on October 5, 1977, by Randy Burnworth, acting in his individual capaci- ty (Burnworth). The complaint issued on November 30, alleging that Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Respondent), had vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act (Act), as amended. Post-trial briefs were filed for the General Counsel and for Respondent. I JURISDICTI(ON Respondent is a Missouri corporation engaged in the op- eration of a brewery in Van Nuys, California. Its annual gross income exceeds $500,000. and it annually ships beer of a value exceeding $50,000 across state lines. Respondent is an employer engaged in and affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II ISSI F The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) by suspending Burnworth from September 30 through October 9, 1977. The answer denies any wrong- doing. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. Evidence Burnworth is a swing-shift maintenance machinist at Re- spondent's Van Nuys brewery and part of a unit covered by a labor agreement between Respondent and District Lodge No. 94, International Association of Machinists (Union).' His immediate supervisor is Glen Marshall, fore- man of the maintenance department. Marshall's immediate superior is Bob Holzworth, general foreman of the swing shift. Burnworth, among others, is called upon from time to time to change filter bags or "socks" in the brewery's airve- yor. The airveyor has 60 such socks, which filter foreign matter from grains used in the brewing process. The socks are 6 inches in diameter and range in length from 66 to 74 inches. They are replaced every 2 or 3 months, the proce- dure taking 20 to 30 minutes per sock and requiring two employees. Marshall testified that those changing socks "will be covered with the dust from head to foot," and that it is an "undesirable job" for that reason. The airveyor is a multistory cylindrical structure situated in the grain building at the brewery, in a room 72 feet high by 52 feet square. The socks are housed at the seventh floor level and are accessible by catwalk. The room is heavily windowed for ventilation purposes, and its light fixtures, switches, etc., are designed to minimize the possibility of igniting a dust explosion. As is more fully described below, Burnworth's suspen- sion followed his refusal on September 30, 1977, to change socks while welding was being done in the room. This had become a point of contention 3 or so weeks before, when he and a coworker were told to change socks in the same circumstances. Burnworth was reluctant then to undertake the task, telling Marshall and Holzworth of his concern that the welding might spark an explosion. They were un- sympathetic, Holzworth declaring that the practice had been in effect for 20 years without mishap and inviting Burnworth to go home if he did not like it. With that, Burnworth and the coworker returned to the airveyor. The welding by then was done, and they changed socks as or- dered. Soon after that initial confrontation, Burnworth began to discuss the seeming danger of the situation with various of his coworkers, espousing the need for the development and posting of rules governing welding, etc., in the grain building. They shared his concern and assisted him in working up a series of questions and comments to be put to management regarding the matter. Burnworth showed a handwritten draft of the questions and comments to his union steward, Don Hendrickson, who likewise shared his concern. Hendrickson arranged for his wife to convert the draft to this typewritten form: 2 Safety Question: Who and how determines when it is safe and by It is concluded that the Union is a labor organization within the mean- ini of Sec 2(5) of the Act ' Spelling errors corrected. 208 ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. what procedures when followed is it determined safe to: I. Use electric drill motor? 2. Use air motor? 3. Use cutting torch? 4. Use welder? 5. Have on person a ligh:ter and smoke in the grain building? We were under opinion that none of the above were allowed, unless the following were: 1. All windows are open. 2. By scientific method determine amount of grain dust in air is at a safe non-combustible level. (What method is used?) 3. All exposed areas vacuumed and cleaned. 4. Possible area wetted. 5. All machinery that could spout dust into work area shut off, and tagged at all on switches. 6. All other normal fire precautions are in effect. Now to point out, we arrived on 7th floor of grain building to discover several men at work, some weld- ing, some soldering, and some using cutting torch. Upon examination we discovered: 1. That only 4 or 5 windows were open, (and we don't think that is sufficient.) 2. Areas poorly cleaned with much dust residue. 3. No electrical shutdown enforced. 4. Areas not wetted down. 5. One "engineer said it was safe." By what scien- tific method did he use to gain this knowledge and power? 6. No fire permit or extra fire extinguishers on site visible. WE DESIRE ANSWERS TO ALL THE ABOVE QUESTIONS BE POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD Hendrickson Hendrickson gave a copy of the document to one of the employees, Richard Garcia, for presentation at the September 13 monthly meeting of Respondent's safety committee. Garcia was not a member of the commit- tee, but was to attend as the winner of a safety slogan contest. Garcia gave the copy to Donald Burnell, supervis- or of plant personnel, either just before or just after the meeting adjourned. Whichever, it did not receive commit- tee consideration. On September 14, Burnell discussed the document with his superior, James Turner, manager of industrial relations. This was by long-distance telephone, Turner being at com- pany headquarters in St. Louis, Mo. Turner felt that some of the points bore validity and directed Burnell to take them up with the brewmaster, Jim Bianchi, and the mainte- nance superintendent, George Edwards. Burnell accord- ingly met with Bianchi and Edwards, and also with Mar- shall and Holzworth, on September 15. There was some speculation during these meetings about the authorship of the questions and comments, with Burnworth being isolat- ed as most likely. Later on the 15th, Hendrickson noticed that the minutes of the safety committee meeting had no mention of the questions and comments and asked Burnell if they had been received. Burnell said they had, and Hendrickson asked if he intended to respond to them. Burnell replied that there was no need for that, that he had reviewed the situation and saw no basis for concern about safety in the grain building. Burnell then either said he knew or asked Hendrickson who was responsible for the document. In either case, no names were mentioned. On September 16, reacting to the nonmention in the minutes of the questions and comments, Burnworth made the first of numerous telephone calls to the Van Nuys Divi- sion of the Los Angeles Fire Department and to the Cali- fornia Division of Industrial Safety. The calls to the fire department prompted Arthur Bowman, a fire inspector, to visit the brewery on September 23, at which time he was escorted through the grain building by the plant engineer, Hubert Smith. Explaining his presence, Bowman told Smith that there had been "a complaint ... regarding welding that was being done under allegedly unsafe condi- tions in the grain building." He did not identify the com- plainant. Based upon his inspection and upon research about grain-dust explosions.3 Bowman sent a citation of fire/life safety violation to Respondent. The citation, dated Sep- tember 27 and received September 30, states among other things: 2. N.F.P.A. Pamphlet #51-B will be your source of precautionary measures (minimum) which you will be expected to adhere to. 3. Provide written instructions on bulletin board in maintenance offices of complied directions and pre- cautions taken from above pamphlet for all mainte- nance personnel's knowledge and reference. The N.F.P.A. is the National Fire Protection Associa- tion, and its standards as set forth in its various pamphlets are incorporated in the Los Angeles Fire Code. Among the standards set forth in Pamphlet 51-B is this: 41. Cutting or welding shall not be permitted in the following situations: * . . * * 413. In the presence of explosive atmospheres (mix- tures of flammable gases, vapors, liquids or dusts with air), or explosive atmospheres . . . that may develop in areas with an accumulation of combustible dusts. Meanwhile, Burnell discussed the situation with Alan Ball of Respondent's insurance carrier, Zurich-American Among other things Bow man consulted by telephone with the St. Louts Fire Department because of the heavr concentration of grain storage facil- ities in its jurisdiciion. 4Pamphlet 61 B of the N. F P.A. contains this paragraph: 10101 Welding and cutting operations are potentialiy one of the most hazardous operations tha: may be conducted in grain storage and han- dling buildings. fhis is parlicularly true because of the combustible dust and other refuse which might he found in the Immediate vicinity where welding or cutting is carried out 209 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Insurance Companies. On September 2 some printed materials to Burnell describi be taken in the operation of grain-hand cluding this: 17. Ignition Sources (b) Welding and Cutting not done nary understanding prior to such we written permission. All dust produc area shut down.... On September 26, Ball inspected the gi an independent consulting engineer, CI though both commented at the time that well kept, they did say that they had cert tions, which were reduced to writing an( spondent on October 10. Neither Ball no the sock-changing process, and neither w ion of its being done during welding. Th tions are silent on that issue. On September 28, Burnworth showed a tions and comments to Marshall and urge and posting of safety rules. Marshall r could do nothing about it, and suggeste go to the Union and to the Occupational Administration (OSHA). On September 30, Marshall directed coworker, Andrew Bittner, to change so tion of what they were doing. Burnworth ing was in progress in the grain buildin shall of their conversation of the 28th ar have to refuse to do the work." Marsh Burnworth go to the grain building and tion of the situation before making up hi worth replied that even that would be were going on. Burnworth then asked, or Marshall thought he should clock out, or work he could do. An hour or so later, when he and Bitt go to the grain building, Burnworth infor Holzworth that they were on their way at of the welding. Holzworth, citing sundr precautions that had been taken, stated danger, and Burnworth countered that spondent to be in violation of certain fir he had obtained. Holzworth responded industrial relations manager, had assured ation was safe, to which Burnworth dec did not have to work in it. Burnworth and Bittner then procee building, agreeing en route that they 1 socks if welding was underway. Upon a the building to be immaculately clean, than they had ever seen it, and that the opened to achieve maximum ventilation. then present, although a welding crew p Burnworth ascertained from the welde be done in 10 or 15 minutes, and he a] building to await that. Moments later, M them near the brewhouse. He asked w 1, Ball delivered working, and Burnworth said it was unsafe in the grain ng precautions to building because of the welding. Marshall, first reciting the ling facilities, in- litany of precautions that had been taken, asked them to go to work and they refused. 5 The three then went before Holzworth. Marshall related what had just happened, and Holzworth conferred with * * Turner by telephone. Pursuant to Turner's guidance, ewithout prelimi- Holzworth recited anew the assorted precautions that had been taken and asked Burnworth if he still refused to work )rk and only with ing operations in tduring welding. Burnworth said that he did, adding that the welding was almost over. Holzworth said that that was irrelevant and, still following Turner's instructions, an- rain building with nounced that Burnworth was suspended pending further harles Smith. Al- investigation. Bittner apparently was silent throughout this t the building was meeting and suffered no sanctions for his part in the mat- ain recommenda- ter. He changed the socks later that evening, after the weld- d received by Re- ing had ended, aided by another employee. )r Smith observed On October 3, Burnworth received a notice of violation as asked his opin- of plant rules or regulations. It states that he had violated heir recommenda- plant rule I I-A by refusing to "perform assigned work or refusal to comply with supervisory instructions." It further a copy of his ques- states: !d the formulation You are hereby suspended for one week from October esponded that he 3, 1977, to and including October 9, 1977. You will d that Burnworth report to work on your regular shift on Monday, Octo- Safety and Health ber 10, 1977. Any further violations will result in a more severe disciplinary action. Burnworth and a cks upon comple- On October 4, having been informed by Burnworth of , aware that weld- the September 30 incident, Inspector Bowman sent Re- g, reminded Mar- spondent a second citation concerning "welding and/or nd said he "might cutting in grain elevator"; on November 3, a fire preven- all suggested that tion engineer for the City of Los Angeles recommended to make an evalua- Respondent by letter that "the removal of socks from the s mind, and Burn- airveyor system should not be undertaken during welding unsafe if welding operations"; and, on November 10, Respondent incorpo- stensibly in jest, if rated that recommendation in a newly posted procedure r if there was other for cutting and welding. Turner testified that the decision to suspend Burnworth tner were ready to was his alone and that, when he directed it on the 30th, he med Marshall and only knew that an employee, identity and circumstances id asked the status unknown, had refused to follow orders. Turner embel- y inspections and lished that, when he talked to Holzworth on the 30th, he that there was no "made no connection with the previous problem" of safety t he believed Re- in the grain building. He testified elsewhere, however, that re regulations that it was not necessary for Holzworth to go into particular i that Turner, the detail with him on the 30th because "I was very familiar I him that the situ- with the events leading up to this, because of the questions, ,lared that Turner because of my investigations, because of my discussion with various people." Consistent with this latter testimony, ded to the grain Marshall testified that he was aware, on September 30, that would not change the controversy about safety in the grain building was arrival, they found "coming to a head" and that he assumed Burnworth to be perhaps more so "responsible." Marshall nevertheless denied that Burn- windows had been worth was assigned the sock-changing operation that day · Nor were welders to facilitate a confrontation. resently appeared. Turner testified at one point that he did not learn of !rs that they would Burnworth's part in the written questions and comments nd Bittner left the until well after the suspension, only to concede that he first 1arshall came upon vhy they were not 5 Marshall testified that "they refused." 210 ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. "suspected" Burnworth's authorship sometime between September 19 and 27. The controlling labor agreement contains this no-strike, no-lockout clause: During the term of this Agreement, the Union shall not authorize, cause, engage in, sanction, or assist in a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown against the Com- pany. The Company shall not cause, permit, or engage in any lockout of the employees covered hereby. The agreement also contains this provision, under "Safety Rules": No employee shall be discharged or disciplined for refusing to work on a job if his refusal is based upon the claim that said job is not safe, or might unduly endanger his health, until it is determined by the Em- ployer that the job is or has been made safe, or will not unduly endanger his health. Any dispute concerning such determination is subject to the grievance proce- dure. B. Conclusion It is concluded that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) by its suspension of Burnworth. The conduct ostensibly triggering the suspension- Burnworth's refusal to change socks during welding on September 30th-was a concerted activity, normally pro- tected by the Act, for two reasons. First, Bittner joined in the refusal; 6 and second, even had Burnworth been acting alone, he was acting in arguable vindication of his right under the agreement to refuse "to work on a job if his refusal is based upon the claim that the job is not safe." As stated in Roadway Express, Inc., 217 NLRB 278, 279 (1975): [W]hen an employee makes complaints concerning safety matters which are embodied in a contract, he is acting not only in his own interest, but is attempting to enforce such contract provisions in the interest of all the employees covered under that contract. Such ac- tivity we have found to be concerted and protected under the Act. Given Burnworth's arguable contract entitlement to refuse to work, it does not detract from the refusal's protected character that it may not, in fact, have comported with the correct interpretation of the clause in question. The Singer Company, Climate Control Division, 198 NLRB 870 (1972). Burnworth's various safety activities before September 30th-discussing with his coworkers the safety of welding in the grain building and drafting the questions and com- ments in consultation with them, calling the situation to the attention of the fire department and the Division of Industrial Safety, and going over the questions and com- ments with Marshall on September 28th-likewise were 6 nion Boiler Company. 213 NLRB 81i (1974): Eirex Internaurlnal, In, 213 NLRB 260 (1974); Belfr' Coal ( orporation. 139 NIRB 1058 (19621 Respondent's assertion is rejected that it had no knov, ledge that Burnivorth and Bittner were acting in concert. As noted in a preslus footnote. Mar- shall testified that when he asked them to go to work. "thes refused." concerted activities, normally protected by the Act.7 It is inferable, moreover, that the suspension was motivated by the September 30 incident in combination with some or all of these activities and not, as Respondent would have it, by that incident in isolation. Most revealing of this, Bittner, a copartner with Burnworth on the 30th but not before, was not disciplined. Further to the same effect was Marshall's testimony that the safety issue was "coming to a head" on the 30th, with Burnworth assumedly at the core. That "the gun was loaded and cocked" was suggested as well by Turner's testimony that he was so abreast of the matter that a minimum of explanation was needed when Holzworth called to report the refusal to work. Finally, Respondent received Inspector Bowman's first citation earlier on the 30th-a development doubtless tending to bring things "to a head" that day and which doubtless was linked in management minds with Burnworth's safety ac- tivities. Thus, even accepting Respondent's argument that the refusal to work on the 30th constituted a stnke and that it was without statutory protection because of the no-strike provision, the suspension still was unlawful because pro- voked in part by Burnworth's other concerted activities, the protected status of which had not even arguably been waived through the bargaining process. Quoting from Con- struction, Production & Maintenance Laborers' Union local No. 383, affiliated with Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (William Pulice Concrete Con- struction), 236 NLRB 125 (1978): [T]o find a violation of the Act it need only be shown that a respondent's conduct was, in part, discriminato- rily motivated, and the coexistence of separate lawful reasons does not eliminate the unlawful aspect of the conduct in question. In such cases, where a respon- dent's motivations are mixed, the Board has held that the legal effect of the conduct is the same as though the illegal reason for its action was the only operative reason. Beyond that, Respondent's argument that the September 30 refusal was without protection because of the no-strike clause gives unwarranted breadth to the language of that clause. It states only that "the Union shall not .... " no- where proscribing employee action independently under- taken. To give it the broader sweep Respondent urges would be to ignore the precept that "the waiver of statutory rights is not lightly to be inferred" 8 and "must be 'clear and unmistable.' "9 Not only is such a waiver not inferable from the no-strike clause, as concerns situations such as the refusal on the 30th, it is directly belied by the clause per- mitting work refusals "based upon the claim that the job is not safe." Also rejected is Respondent's argument that the Septem- ber 30 refusal was unprotected because the clause just cited IF.g . H & P totor fxprers. In(. 230 Nl.RB 653 (1977) (threat ha em- plosee to make safets-related complaint to a Federal agenc): .4illelua ( u.shwln (), Inc. 221 NL RB 999 11975) (safeti-related co.mplaint hb) em- plo.see to a state agenc): Eri Straetr ( rmpani. 213 Nl RB 344 (19741 (safetl-related complaint hb emnploee to management) G(;ari-ltohoar, aler ( orporatrin. 210 NL.RB 742. 745 ( 1974) Insura,( 1 ,orketrl International Union, .4Ft . ( 10, l) -t 0 Joihn Han- ,,,A 1,tual ltti e Insuraznce ( 'otpanl, 236 NI RB 44)0 (1')78). 211 DE(CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD permits refusals to work only "until it is determined by the Employer that the job is or has been made safe," Respon- dent assertedly having made such a determination. The is- sue of clear and unmistakable waiver aside, this argument is incompatible with the conclusion reached above that Burnworth's refusal gained statutory protection in part be- cause it enjoyed arguable sanction under that same provi- sion. The argument also assumes a fact not in evidence- namely, that any kind of good-faith determination had been made regarding the safety of coincident welding and sock-changing. Apart from his protected concerted activities, Burnworth engaged in protected union activity by enlisting the union steward, Hendrickson, in aid of his safety campaign. If Re- spondent's suspension of him was motivated in part by this activity, the suspension of course violated Section 8(a)(3) as well as 8(a)(l). It is concluded, however, since the rem- edy would not be significantly affected, that there is no need to reach this issue. It also is concluded, in light of the preceding analysis, that there is no need to assess the September 30 refusal to work in terms of Section 502 of the Act.10 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. By suspending Randy Burnworth as found herein, Respondent violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. 2. This unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER " The Respondent, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Suspending or otherwise discriminating against its employees for engaging in protected concerted activities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in their exercise of rights under the Act. 2. Take this affirmative action: (a) Make Randy Burnworth whole for any loss of earn- ings or benefits suffered by reason of his unlawful suspen- sion, plus interest.t2 (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its brewery in Van Nuys, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all palces where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IU Sec. 502 states that "the quitting of labor by an employee or employees In good faith because of abnormally dangerous conditions for work . .. [shall not] be deemed a strike under this Act." All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the Natiional 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. 2 Backpay is to be computed in accordance with iF W Woolworth Com- pant, 90 NLRB 289 1950), with interest to be computed in the manner set forth in Florida Steel Corporatlin, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally. Isis Plumhing i& Heating (Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962). In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States ('ourt 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 Ulnited States (Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National L.abor Relations Board." 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 parties participated and had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we committed an unfair labor prac- tice in violation of Section 8(a)( ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this notice and abide by it. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives all employees the following rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or support unions To bargain as a group through a representative they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such activity except to the extent that the employees' bargaining represen- tative and employer have a collective-bargaining agreement which imposes a lawful requirement that employees become union members. WE WILL NOT suspend or otherwise discriminate against our employees for engaging in protected con- certed activities. WE WILL Nor in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in their exer- cise of rights under the Act. WE WILL make Randy Burnworth whole for any loss of earnings or benefits suffered by reason of his un- lawful suspension, plus interest. ANHEUSER-ButS(Hi IN( 212