Hartwell Co., Inc.

412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hartwell Company, Inc. and John J. White, An In- dividual. Case 1-CA-5839 January 29, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On September 13, 1967, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent riled excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup- porting brief. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or- ders that Respondent, Hartwell Company, Inc., Plymouth, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard at Plymouth, Massachusetts, on June 13, 1967,1 with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon the complaint issued by the General Counsel on April 212 alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by Hartwell Company, Inc., hereafter referred to as Respondent. 1 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1967 unless otherwise noted The complaint alleges that on or about March 1 the Respondent discharged White and has since refused to reinstate him because of his union activities or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. In its duly filed answer Re- spondent admitted the discharge but denied the commis- sion of any unfair labor practices. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses. I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE At all times material herein, Respondent, a Rhode Island corporation with its principal office and place of business in East Providence, Rhode Island, has been en- gaged as a mechanical contractor throughout the various States of the United States. In the course and conduct of its business operations as a mechanical contractor, Respondent purchases and transports in interstate com- merce from and through various States of the United States other than the State of Rhode Island substantial quantities of construction materials, and annually per- forms services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of Rhode Island. Respondent admits, and I find, at all times material herein, that it has been en- gaged as an employer in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits and I find that, at all times material herein, United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 276, hereinafter referred to as Pipefitters, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the .Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background At all times material herein, Respondent has been a party to a collective-bargaining agreement (Resp. Exh. 2), called the National Construction Agreement, with United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Interna- tional Union. This agreement contains a three-step grievance procedure involving representatives of the local union, the Employer, the international representa- tive, and the contractor, and finally , arbitration, and prohibits suspension of work or strikes until the grievance and arbitration procedures have been exhausted. The agreement also binds the Employer to the hiring practices in the local area not inconsistent with its terms. The local area involved in the instant case, Sandwich, Mas- sachusetts , is covered under an agreement (G.C. Exh. 2) between the Pipefitters and the Plumbing, Pipefitting and Heating Contractors Association of Brockton and Vicini- z Based upon a charge filed on March 6 by John J. White, an individual 169 NLRB No. 73 HARTWELL COMPANY, INC. ty. This agreement contains procedures for settling grievances and jurisdictional disputes and prohibits work stoppages pending such decisions. B. The Facts About August 1966, Respondent commenced installing certain mechanical equipment as a subcontractor for Stone & Webster, the prime contractor , on the Canal Electric Project in Sandwich , Massachusetts. In the course of its operations and pursuant to its National Agreement , Respondent obtained employees from the Pipefitters within whose jurisdiction the instant project was located. Among those referred by Pipefitters was John J. White, a pipefitter and member of a Local of the International Union other than Pipefitters , who was hired on December 5, 1966. About the middle of January White and other pipefitters while on the job noticed or had called to their attention that ironworkers were un- loading and setting up pumps on the project . Accom- panied by fellow pipefitters , who stopped working, White approached the ironworkers and questioned their right to perform such work, which he claimed was within the ju- risdiction of Pipefitters. Despite the assertion of the iron- workers that the work had been awarded to them, several pipefitters standing around blocked them from continuing their work. Erlinson, the project superintendent for Stone & Webster and James J. Rafferty , Respondent's job su- perintendent, then appeared at the scene. White, as spokesman for the pipefitters , remonstrated to Rafferty that the ironworkers were doing pipefitters ' work, but Rafferty declined to take a position in the matter . Erlin- son then advised White that he was fired.3 Meanwhile, Byron (Byram) Howard, the Pipefitters shop steward, who had been summoned by a pipefitter at the behest of White, arrived at the scene and prevailed upon the men to return to work, assuring them that he would try to resolve the issue. According to Howard, the disputed work had been assigned to members of the Ironworkers Union by Stone & Webster prior to the inception of work on the project because of the inability of the Pipefitters and Iron- workers to agree on the assignment. Thereafter, Stone & Webster hired ironworkers to perform the disputed work. It also appears that Johnny Lee, Pipefitters business agent, had thereafter been unsuccessful in an attempt to have the assignment changed.4 On January 31, White again observed the ironworkers setting up pumps, and urged the pipefitters to walk off the job after lunch, and to claim sickness or the need to go to church. After lunch , upon White's importuning, about 100 of the pipefitters working for Respondent and other subcontractors walked off the job. The next morning, Johnny Lee appeared at the jobsite and urged the pipefit- ters, who were congregated outside of the jobsite gate, to return to work to show their good faith. The men, includ- ing White, agreed to do so and resumed working. Later that day, a managerial meeting was held at which Erlin- 3 Apparently, the discharge was not implemented. 4 The above findings are based on undisputed testimony. 5 The collective-bargaining agreement covering the area (G.C Exh. 2) provides in article XII : "A welder shall be accompanied by a journeyman at all times." 6 White also discussed the matter with him on other occasions but Raf- ferty adhered to his refusal to pay it . White also claimed, but Respondent denied, that he had received such pay differential on other jobs for Respondent or a related company 413 son, the project superintendent , stated that nothing could be done about the jurisdictional dispute of the Ironwork- ers and Pipefitters because of the National Agreement. When some of the foremen, members of Pipefitters, in- cluding Bob Foley, objected, Anthony Smith, an or- ganizer for Pipefitters, who also attended the meeting, told Foley that if they didn't like it, they could leave. At this meeting White's name was mentioned in connection with the ironworkers' incidents. On January 17 Respondent's general foreman, Nor- man Gauthier, also a member of a local of the Interna- tional Union other than Pipefitters , approached White and his foreman, Bob Foley, on the job and directed Foley to 'assign White to welding work instead of pipefitting. Upon White's assignment to welding work, he requested that a fitter accompany him on the job, alleging that the work was dangerous, and that the Pipefitters col- lective-bargaining agreement provided for one under such circumstances .5 Gauthier denied the need for a fitter because the work was not to be done on a scaffold and refused to provide one. Shop Steward Howard was then consulted about providing a fitter, and he advised White to do the work while he checked with Pipefitters Business Agent Lee. On February 2 White asked Rafferty for 25 cents extra pay for hot welding, but Rafferty declined to pay it, and affirmed that he would pay only the scale in Pipefitters' agreement.6 Later that day during lunchtime White ad- vised a group of welders in the change shanty on the jobsite that they were entitled to 25 cents over the scale or noontime pay while working on hot welds , and urged them to stick together to get the increase.7 Gauthier then appeared from his office, which was separated by a thin petition from the room where the welders were con- gregated, and told White to shut his "god-damn" mouth and that he was always getting involved about the Union's business or tactics or grievances.8 It also appears that on several occasions while the men were in the change shanty during lunchtime , White would loudly discuss matters in which he alleged that the Company was not living up to its collective-bargaining contract, and would call out to Gauthier whether it wasn't so. On at least one occasion he berated Gauthier for not being a better union man9 and protecting the rights of union mem- bers. On February 14 during lunchtime White engaged in a conversation with Manny Olivera, a foreman over the hot welders, discussing extra welder pay and the necessity for the presence of a foreman while a pipefitter was working on the job. At this moment Gauthier appeared and "blasted" White for bringing up union business , stating that the Union had a steward on the job and it was up to him to take up any grievances. On February 15 White burned his leg while welding and saw the company nurse on February 17 after calling it to the attention of Gauthier. White was told to see his doctor but failed to do so. On February 20 White again ' There is also undenied testimony that White urged at least one em- ployee to refuse to work on hot welds unless he received the wage dif- ferential However, no work stoppages occurred because of the refusal to pay it 8 These findings are based upon White's credited testimony Gauthier's testimony concerning the incident differed only in that he told White to return to work because the whistle had been blown indicating that the lunch period was over 9 Gauthier is a member of an International local other than Pipefitters. 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD saw the nurse who told him to see the doctor. He saw the doctor on that day and an the'following day as instructed. On February 24 the doctor discharged him from further treatment. On each visit to the doctor he was away from his job for about half an hour. That weekend he noticed his timecard showed only 7 hours worked on each of 2 days on which he had visited the doctor. He thereupon questioned Gauthier about being docked for an hour's pay, and was told that only the first visit was on company time, and that he had brought it all on himself and was al- ways talking. White retorted that the Company was out to get him. He then went to see Rafferty to complain about being docked but obtained no redress despite his accusation that the boilermakers were not being docked under similar circumstances . White also mentioned the incident to his shop steward. On March 1 White received his pay by check and asked his foreman, Foley, whether the Union's bargain- ing agreement provided for payment in cash or in the al- ternative for a half hour off during banking hours to cash his check.10 After Foley replied that the agreement pro- vided for it, both of them at White's suggestion went into town and cashed their checks. I I That afternoon White was summoned to Gauthier's office and told that he was being fired for gambling and talking too much. When White asked whether his work was satisfactory, Gauthier replied that he had no complaints about his work but that he was always griping about everything and about the Union, and that he should see Rafferty. White, thereupon, went to see Rafferty, who in the presence of Shop Steward Howard told White he was being fired for break- ing the Company' s rule 11 (gambling on the project). Raf- ferty then produced a raffle ticket on the Sacred Heart School athletic equipment pool and showed it to White, who replied that he had sold it to Rafferty during lunchtime on February 27. Prior to that time, raffles had been run weekly, first by Gauthier, and then by the foremen during the preceding few months. In these pools, $2 was collected from each player, whose name was then placed on a piece of paper and put in a hat from which a winning name was drawn. On February 10 White won $68 and was paid off by Gauthier. The record also reveals that there was betting on the project on various sports, and that no one had been fired for gambling prior to White's discharge. Nor had anyone ever pointed out the rule against gambling to White. Tickets for the raffles and for other gaming events were sold openly during lunchtime.. Rafferty admitted that he used gambling as an excuse to discharge White, and that he had previously advised Gauthier that he was going to do so. The record also shows that in his report of the discharge, Rafferty stated it was for gambling, that by letter of March 16, Respond- ent's president advised the Board' s Regional Office that White was discharged for violating rule 11 of the Com- pany's posted rules which reads: "Gambling, selling of lotteries, or running of raffles are not tolerated," and pro- vides further that violation of the rules shall be reason for termination . Also on March 27, Rafferty told a represent- ative of the Board in an interview concerning the discharge that White was fired for violating rule 11. When questioned at the hearing as to why he had so advised the 11 G.C. Exh. 2, article XI I I, section 8. 11 According to Foley there had previously been some complaints about payment by check, as a result of which Stone & Webster began pay- Board representative, he stated, "I knew that this was a case that would be coming up accusing me of firing him because of union activities, so, therefore, I stuck to the company rules." He, however, asserted that he, in fact, discharged White "because of the disturbance he was causing on the job, constantly harassing the general foreman, constantly telling the men they weren't doing things right; this was all brought to my attention through my general foreman." As for White's grievances, he ad- mitted that he had had no discussion with Gauthier about the way in which White was handling his grievances, that the disputed work (setting up pumps) was ordinarily Pipefitters work but not in the instant situation, that pipefitters had complained about it before White did, that as a result of White's complaint about not being accom- panied by a fitter while doing hot welding, one was sub- sequently furnished, and that he never told White or asked Gauthier to tell him to process any grievance he might have through the normal grievance procedure. C. Contentions of the Parties In its brief, Respondent contends that White was discharged because he was undermining discipline and respect for Gauthier by constantly harassing and harangu- ing him, and that White's purported engagement in pro- tected activities did not immunize him from discipline for such defiant behavior. Admittedly, gambling was used as a pretext in his discharge. General Counsel asserts that White was discharged because he engaged in policing the Pipefitters collective- bargaining agreement, and complained about Respond- ent's disregard of its terms, and that inasmuch as these are protected concerted activities under Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1). General Counsel also contends that Respondent's cur- rent defense for White's discharge, raised for the first time at the hearing, is patently contrived in an attempt to supplant the unsupported and palpably weak ground of gambling, previously alleged as the cause for his discharge. Although General Counsel's brief sets forth no grounds in support of an alleged 8(a)(3) violation of the Act by Respondent, he nevertheless requests a finding of such violation. D. Conclusions It is well settled that Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees the right, inter alia, to engage in concerted ac- tivities for their mutual aid and protection, and that em- ployees who engage in such activities are protected against discharge or other disciplinary action by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Plastilite Corp., 375 F.2d 343, 346-347 (C.A. 8). In order to prove a concerted ac- tivity under Section 7 of the Act, it is necessary to demonstrate that the activity was for the purpose of in- ducing or preparing for group action to correct a grievance or complaint. The record clearly indicates that White was attempting to induce group action on behalf of all employees in his unit. See Indiana Gear Works v. N.L.R.B., 371 F.2d 273,276 (C.A. 7). The issue herein is whether a preponderance of the ing its employees in cash. Respondent 's employees continued to be paid by check. HARTWELL COMPANY, INC. evidence supports General Counsel's contention that Respondent seized upon the gambling incident as a pre- text for White's discharge, and that the real motive for his discharge derived from its hostility to White as an aggres- sive and effective champion of employee grievances. The record shows that White's employment record has been far from placid. Admittedly, his zealous and persistent ac- tivities on behalf of what he construed to be the rights of his fellow employees made him a thorn in Respondent's side. His constant badgering of Gauthier to support the employees with respect to their contractual benefits may have unnerved him, but that effect did not deprive White of his right to press for those rights and to berate Gauthi- er, a union member himself, for not exerting himself in their behalf. The circumstances raise a persuasive in- ference that Rafferty came to the conclusion that a charge of a gambling infraction provided a safe way to get rid of White without running afoul of the Act. Rafferty admit- tedly used gambling as a pretext because a discharge of White based on his complaints and grievances would backfire and expose him to an accusation that White was fired because of union activity. It, therefore, is reasonable to conclude that the true motivation for White's discharge was his concerted activities, which Rafferty, apparently thought were protected under the Act. Yet, Respondent persisted in asserting for at least 4 weeks after White's discharge, it was due to gambling and falsely kept reiterat- ing to the Board that it was the motivation for the discharge. It was only at the hearing several months later that Respondent allegedly related the "true" motivation for the discharge. I find that its "true" motivation for the discharge was an afterthought contrived to supplant the gambling charge, which in large measure was "staged" by Respondent for the purpose of trapping White, but, as it turned out, was shown to be unsupportable in view of the rampant gambling going on at the project in which management participated. Furthermore, even conceding that gambling was cause for discharge, "It is well settled that the mere existence of a valid ground for discharge is no defense to an unfair labor practice charge if such ground was a pretext and not the moving cause." N.L.R.B. v. Universal Packing Corporation, 361 F.2d 384, 387 (C.A. 1), quoting from N.L.R.B. v. Lipman Bros. Inc., 355 F.Zd 15,21 (C.A. 1). I therefore conclude that the preponderance of the evidence raises a strong in- ference that White was discharged for engaging in con- certed activities in violation of Section 8(a)(l). Furthermore, even if Respondent had initially and in good faith based White's discharge on the ground that he had overstepped the bounds of protected activity, I find that the record would not support that contention. The Board has held that complaints made in an attempt to en- force the provisions' of an existing collective-bargaining agreement constitute protective activity because they are grievances within the framework of the contract which af- fect the rights of all employees in the unit. Interboro Con- tractors, Inc., 157 NLRB 1295. Also "the right of em- ployees to press complaints does not depend on either the 12 It is also significant to note that White heeded the request of the Pipefitters steward or business agent to resume working following each work stoppage 13 Respondent's citations in its brief in support of the discharge are in- apposite In those cases it was found that the discharge was based on outright insubordination and personal abuse of a supervisor, or that there was a failure to establish that the discharge was motivated by the em- ployee's pressing of his rights under Section 7 of the Act. A discharge, as 415 employer's or the Board's appraisal of the merit of the employees' complaint ... [and] is irrelevant to the question of whether the employees are engaging in pro- tected concerted activities," ibid. p. 1298, fn. 7, quoting from Mushroom Transportation Co., Inc., 142 NLRB 1150, 1158, reversed on other grounds 330 F.2d 683 (C.A. 3). White's check-cashing grievance and his de- mand that a fitter accompany him while working on hot welds were amply justified by the provisions of the Pipefitters collective-bargaining agreement . The record also indicates that the jurisdictional dispute with the Iron- workers Union was a smoldering issue even prior to as well as after White's hiring. Nor does it appear that any steps had been taken to resolve that issue pursuant to any contract procedures. Also, even assuming that White resorted to an illegal work stoppage because of that issue, he was not alone, yet no disciplinary measures were shown to have been imposed on other employees for par- ticipating with him in a work stoppage.12 Nor was any warning ever issued to White in connection with the work stoppages, and more than a month intervened before he was discharged, strongly suggesting that wrongdoing, if any, on his part in those incidents had been condoned. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that Respondent erroneously believed in good faith that White participated in acts of misconduct while engaged in protected activity, his discharge, nevertheless, violated Section 8(a)(1). The Act protects employees who are erroneously charged with extending their protected activity in the area of misconduct. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23. For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude tha Respondent discharged White because he engaged in pro- tected concerted activities13 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.14 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and constitute unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all times material herein Pipefitters has veen a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. At all times material herein, Respondent has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By discharging White on March 1 and thereafter refusing to reinstate him because he had engaged in pro- in the instant case, for an employee's over zealous efforts to obtain rigid enforcement of a collective-bargaining contract is a violation of the Act See Seaboard Diecasting Corporation, 137 NLRB 536. 14 In view of this finding, I deem it unnecessary to determine whether Respondent's conduct also constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint The remedy to cure the effect of the unfair labor practice (reinstatement and backpay) which will be recommended would be the same whether the violationrbe of Section 8(a)(1) or (3). 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tected concerted activities , Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act . Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in discharging White and refusing to reinstate him because he engaged in protected concerted activities under the Act, I shall recommend , in the event that the project has not yet been completed , that Respondent offer White im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former or substan- tially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniori- ty or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of reinstatement , less his net earnings during such period, in accordance with the for- mula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest on said sum, such in- terest to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In the event the project has been completed , I shall recommend that the foregoing be modified to the follow- ing extent : Respondent need not offer reinstatement to White but shall send him a letter stating that, not- withstanding his discharge , he will be considered eligible for employment in the future at any of Respondent's pro- jects if he should choose to apply for employment at any of them . 15 In addition , Respondent shall include in the letter a copy of the notices which would otherwise have been posted if the project had not been completed. Also, Respondent shall mail copies of the notice to all its em- ployees employed by Respondent at the Canal Electric Project on March 1, 1967. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in this case , I recommend that Hartwell Company, Inc., its of- ficers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees or otherwise discriminat- ing in regard to their hire , tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, because they have en- gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, 1; This does not require Respondent to offer White employment at other projects ; but is only to consider him for employment on a nondis- criminatory basis. 16 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, ex- cept to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) In the event Respondent 's operations at the Canal Electric Project in Sandwich , Massachusetts , are still in progress , offer to John J. White immediate and full rein- statement to his former or substantially equivalent posi- tion, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) In the event Respondent 's operations at the aforesaid project have been completed , make John J. White whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge and insure his eligibility for future employment in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify John J. White if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to rein- statement herein upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports and all other records necessa- ry or useful to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) In the event that Respondent's operations at the Canal Electric Project in Sandwich , Massachusetts, are still in progress, post at said project copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative , shall' be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and remain posted as long as operations on the Canal Electric Project are in progress, but for a period of no longer than 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) In the event Respondent's operations at the Canal Electric Project at Sandwich , Massachusetts , have been completed, mail copies of the aforesaid notice to the em- ployees specified in the section entitled "The Remedy." (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 17 Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX HARTWELL COMPANY, INC. 417 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or otherwise discriminate in regard to the hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment because they have engaged in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer- cise of their right to engage in, or to refrain from en- gaging in, any or all the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer John J. White immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, if we have not completed operations at the Canal Elec- tric Project at Sandwich, Massachusetts. WE WILL, in the event that the Canal Electric Pro- ject in Sandwich, Massachusetts, has been completed, insure John J . White that he is eligible for future employment by us. WE WILL make John J. White whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the dis- crimination against him. Dated By HARTWELL COMPANY, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify John J. White if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3300.