Graphic Arts Engraving Co., Inc.

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Graphic Arts Engraving Co., Inc. and Hiawatha Bradley. Case 20-CA-6687 June 16, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On December 30, 1971, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respon- dent filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding 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 recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent they are consistent with our opinion set forth below. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by constructive- ly discharging Hiawatha Bradley in reprisal for his having engaged in protected activity. Bradley was hired in July 1969 under a special labor-management agreement designed to expand apprenticeship opportunities for minority groups. At all times material, Bradley, in addition to his employment with Respondent, attended college during the day. His employment history shows that he was assigned to the night shift, and worked days only when compatible with his educational require- ments. Because Bradley's work on the night shift was essentially limited to zinc etching, and as no journeyman was assigned to his department, Bradley complained to Respondent that he was not given the training required for apprentices under the applica- ble collective-bargaining agreement.' The instant complaint alleges that Respondent constructively discharged Bradley for discriminatory reasons, when as a result of his objection to the lack of journeyman on the night shift, Respondent intentionally transferred Bradley to the day shift, thereby requiring him to leave his job in order to I In material part the bargaining agreement provides- . an apprentice [shall not ] be employed in any branch or any shift on which a journeyman is not also employed and working in the same branch" 2 The Union, as requested by Respondent, counseled Bradley, instruct- continue his college education. The Trial Examiner, in dismissing the complaint, reasoned that the transfer of Bradley to the day shift was not motivated by animus against Bradley, but was an effort to remedy training inadequacies and to further the apprenticeship program. We disagree. Bradley's objection to the absence of a journeyman was clearly based upon the collective-bargaining agreement and, whether or not meritorious, was protected by Section 7 of the Act. Since Respondent admittedly transferred him to the day shift because of this activity, Bradley was an object of unlawful discrimination, unless, as the Trial Examiner found, this step was taken merely to remedy Bradley's objection. The record does not support any such finding. From the facts, it is apparent that Respondent, under the guise of remedying Bradley's complaint, knowingly placed him in a position requiring him to choose between continued employment and pursuing his education. Respondent was at all times aware that Bradley could not attend school and work on the day shift. When, after the transfer, this was again called to Respondent' s attention, Bradley was told "that's your problem" and that the only job available for him was on the day shift. This despite Respon- dent's admission that it had to transfer another apprentice to the night shift because of Bradley's removal. Although Respondent claims to have acted in order to satisfy Bradley, its entire courseof conduct negates any such assumption. Bradley's claim of improper training on the night shift was not considered by Respondent to be supported by the collective-bargaining agreement, and the Union was obviously in accord with that position. For this reason, it is understandable that Respondent was less than obliging when Bradley first voiced his com- plaint. Indeed, Respondent not only opposed his claim but reacted by seeking the Union's aid describing Bradley as "uncooperative." 2 Consistent with its opposition to Bradley, Respondent at no time expressed any interest in whether Bradley placed a higher value on his job than the "remedy" Respondent imposed. Indeed, Respondent, on noti- fying Bradley of the transfer, never informed him that this step was taken to remedy his objection. Instead, Bradley was merely told that the transfer was "due to vacations,"3 and that the only job available to him was on the day shift. Against this background, Respondent's refusal to permit Bradley's continued employment on the night mg him to cooperate, but Respondent, by immediately transferring him, precluded any opportunity for Bradley to comply. 3 Respondent claims this to have been a mistake, but, as to Bradley, it was never corrected. 197 NLRB No. 96 GRAPHIC ARTS ENGRAVING CO., INC. shift, with or without the training Bradley sought, could hardly be viewed as incidental to a bona fide effort to remedy his complaint. On the contrary, this action, having been taken with full knowledge of Bradley's college commitment, was in reprisal for Bradley's attempt to apply the contractural appren- ticeship requirements strictly to Respondent's opera- tions. Accordingly, we find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by constructively discharging Brad- ley .4 THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by constructively discharging Hiawatha Bradley because he engaged in protected activities, we shall order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take the additional affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Hiawa- tha Bradley. We shall therefore order Respondent to offer him immediate and full reinstatement, unless Respondent has already done so, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the unlawful action against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of offer of full reinstatement, computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Graphic Arts Engraving Co., Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. By constructively discharging Hiawatha Brad- ley because he had engaged in protected activities, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Graphic Arts Engraving Company, Inc., San Fran- 645 cisco, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing em- ployees by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against employees for engaging in protected activity. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of, the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Hiawatha Bradley immediate and full reinstatement to his former position, or to a position substantially equivalent to that which he held immediately prior to October 9, 1970, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, unless Respondent has already done so, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the unlawful action against him in the manner set forth in the section in this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Hiawatha Bradley, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis- charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its premises at San Francisco, Califor- nia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."-5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive, days thereaf- ter, in conspicous places, including' all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 4 We need not pass on whether the discharge also violated Sec. 8 (a)(3), since such a finding in no event affects the remedy provided herein. 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees by discharging or discriminating against them in any other manner, for striking or for engaging in otherwise concerted, protected activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstate- ment to Hiawatha Bradley to his former position, or to a position substantially equivalent to that which he held immediately prior to October 9, 1970, and will make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered, because of the discrimination against him. GRAPHIC ARTS ENGRAVING CO., INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify the above-named employee, 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 is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13018 Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Louis S. PENFIELD , Trial Examiner : This proceeding was heard before me in San Francisco , California, on August 1 The complaint issued on May 20, 1971, and is based upon a charge filed on April 7, 1971. Copies of the complaint and the charge were duly 19, 1971, upon a complaint of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, and answer of Graphic Arts Engraving Co., Inc., herein called Respon- dent.' The issues litigated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act. Upon the entire record, including consideration of briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, and upon my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is a California corporation with a place of business in San Francisco, California, where it is engaged in the business of photographic engraving for various commercial enterprises . During the past calendar year, Respondent, in the course and conduct of such business, purchased goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to it from points outside the State of California. I find that at all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in a business which affects commerce within the meaning of the Act, and assertion of jurisdiction to be appropriate. H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges the unlawful constructive dis- charge of Hiawatha Bradley on October 9, 1970. The General Counsel claims the discharge to have come about because Bradley, an apprentice, engaged in protected concerted activity by insisting that the apprenticeship standards set forth in Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement with San Francisco-Oakland Lithographers and Photoengravers Union No. 8-P, Lithographers and Pho- toengravers International Union , herein called the Union, had been violated by Respondent , and that in retaliation for his protest, Respondent had reassigned Bradley to the day shift in circumstances which Respondent knew would force Bradley to quit his job. Respondent denies that in this, or any other manner, it acted unlawfully with respect to Bradley. Bradley was first employed by Respondent as an apprentice in July 1969. Prior to that time Bradley had worked as an apprentice in the photoengraving industry for another employer , for approximately 6 months. Brad- ley's work as an apprentice, both for Respondent and for his previous employer, was governed by the standard state apprenticeship agreement. The individual apprenticeship agreement covering Bradley's employment with Respon- dent had been approved by an industry joint committee comprised of both employer and union representatives. The state apprenticeship program requires the individual to serve 5 years as an apprentice, at the end of which time he may attain journeyman status. An apprentice works for a wage that is a fixt d percentage of the journeyman rate. The percentage is increased each 6 months that the apprentice- ship continues until, at the end of successful completion of the 5-year period, he will have worked up to the full served upon Respondent. GRAPHIC ARTS ENGRAVING CO., INC. journeyman rate. The photoengraving industry embraces a number of so-called branches each of which involves a different skill.2 The apprenticeship agreement contem- plates that the apprentice shall receive instructions in each branch of the trade from journeymen skilled in each respective branch. Although it is important that any journeyman in the industry have some familiarity with each branch of the trade, it stands undisputed that journeymen normally specialize in one branch or another, and that almost never will a journeyman be equally skilled and be able to function in all the branches. Thus an apprentice normally will be trained by a number of journeymen each skilled in, and working at, the branch in which he specializes. As noted above, the industry point committee which approves each apprenticeship agreement is comprised of both employer and union members. The industry general- ly, including Respondent herein, functions under a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Among other things, this contract has provisions governing the hiring of apprentices. The apprenticeship clauses set forth that apprentices are to be employed only with the mutual consent of the employer and the Union, and that each apprentice employed is to be signatory to an indenture agreement. The number of apprentices allowed any employer is governed by the number of journeymen he employs. An employer may hire apprentices in a ratio of I to his first 7 journeymen, 2 for the first 14, and thereafter, 1 for each 10 journeymen that he has in his employ. The contract wage rates for apprentices are stated in terms of percentages of the journeyman rate, the percentage increasing each 6 months during the 5-year period that the apprenticeship continues. The agreement also provides that in the event of a reduction in the workforce, apprentices will be laid off before journeymen. Section 14.7 of the agreement which figures in this proceeding reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Apprentices shall not be allowed on the night shift except by special permission of the Executive Board of the Local Union; neither shall an apprentice be employed in any branch or any shift on which a journeyman is not also employed and working in the same branch. When Bradley was first employed an addendum to the collective-bargaining agreement relating to so-called ex- quota apprentices was also in effect. This addendum came into being as part of an effort by the industry and the Union to bring minority groups into the industry. It provided, in substance, that in addition to contract provisions for regular apprentices, an employer might also hire I exquota apprentice for each 10 journeymen employed. The regular apprentices were given absolute seniority over exquota apprentices, with a further provision that exquota apprentices could attain regular apprentice- ship if a vacancy occurred. Bradley, a member of a minority group, started to work for Respondent in July 1969 as an exquota apprentice. At 2 These branches include photographer, stripper and printer, zinc and copper etcher, router and blocker, finisher, and masker-proofer. 3 As set forth above sec. 14 7 of the contract provides that an apprentice will not be allowed to work on a night shift unless he gets "special permission from the Executive Board of the local union." The Board 647 the time Bradley, although having an interest in the photoengraving industry, intended to enroll in college in the fall of 1969 for the purpose of working toward a college degree in life sciences. Bradley viewed the latter, rather than the photoengraving industry, as his likely life's work. According to Bradley, he fully disclosed his school plans to Lawrence James, president of Respondent, during the interview that led to Bradley's employment. James denies that Bradley made such disclosure, although he concedes that at some point during the course of Bradley's employment he did hear that he was attending college. Respondent normally operates two shifts. The day shift is comprised of approximately 24 persons, including journeymen skilled in each branch of the photoengraving trade. The night shift exists for competitive reasons, and functions principally as a means of finishing some of the work started on the day shift which could not be completed. The night shift is normally only a quarter as large as the day shift and usually will not have journeymen skilled at each branch of the trade. Apprentices are regarded as production employees whose contribution to the operation is initially small, but will increase as they become better trained. An apprentice will not usually be assigned to a particular journeyman but will be assigned to a branch with work needs, and when working at that branch will be trained by the journeyman specializing in that particular work. During the term of his apprenticeship, the apprentice will be moved from one branch to another in order to obtain well-rounded training. Apparently, however, there is no definite schedule or pattern which governs this and, to a large degree, shifts from one branch to another will be controlled by work needs. Insofar as Respondent's operation is concerned the larger and more fully staffed day shift offers far more vaned opportunities to an apprentice and if he is to obtain the broad range of training that the agreement contemplates from the stand- point of his full development it is the better place for him to work than the more limited night shift. In July 1969 when Bradley started working for Respon- dent, he was placed on the day shift. He started working primarily in the zinc etching branch of the trade in association with the journeymen who specialized in that branch. When college opened in September, Bradley transferred to the night shift. This transfer appears to have come about at Bradley's request and no objection to it was voiced by either Respondent or the Union.3 After moving to the night shift Bradley continued to work at zinc etching. From the time of his transfer in September until sometime in October, a journeyman skilled in that branch was working on the night shift and Bradley worked with and received his training primarily from him. This journeyman, however, left Respondent's employ in October. The other journeymen on the night shift specialized in other branches of the trade although they had some knowledge and skill in zinc etching. Although Bradley received minimal training in some other branches, his work assignment remained primarily in zinc granted Bradley such pernussion at this time Although James claims to have been unaware of the reasons for Bradley's transfer to the night shift, James concedes that he always had trouble in getting enough men willing to work on the night shift and concedes that Bradley's requested transfer may have been welcome 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD etching even after the departure of the zinc etching journeyman. In substantial measure, this situation contin- ued from October 1969 until October 1970 when the transfer giving rise to this proceeding was directed. Bradley came to regard the absence of a journeyman zinc etcher on the night shift, when coupled with his continuing assignment to work in that branch, as both limiting his training as a zinc etcher and also resulting in his receiving insufficient training in other branches. Bradley first voiced a complaint to this effect to manage- ment in January 1970. Management responded by assign- ing Bradley to the day shift during a college semester break that same month. The semester break, however, lasted only 1 week, and when it ended Bradley returned to the night shift with the previous situation unchanged. Late in September 1970, Bradley, still feeling his training to be inadequate, stated to James that if he were to be responsible for all the zinc etching on the night shift he should have more compensation. James replied that as an apprentice the contract limited Bradley to the exact percentage of the journeyman's rate he was then getting. Bradley then told James, "if I am to work at night without a journeyman's presence, how can my pay scale be set by this and you not also adhere to the agreement that is signed by the photoengravers and the Company?" James, while not acknowledging that Respondent was in any way breaching the agreement by failing to have a zinc etching specialist on the night shift, replied by stating to Bradley that "if [he needed] a journeyman present we would just have to switch you to days so you could work with a journeyman." Following this complaint, James discussed the matter with Russell Wilson, the union business agent, stressing that Bradley appeared somewhat uncooperative, and that it might be well for Wilson to speak to him. Subsequently, Wilson talked with Bradley. Bradley repeat- ed to Wilson his complaint that since "he was doing journeyman's work and only receiving apprentice's wages ... the contract stated there should be a journeyman in the branch and there wasn't one." Wilson informed Bradley that "he was being paid all the contract provided for." Wilson also told Bradley that he must be "coopera- tive and fulfill his apprenticeship obligations." Wilson testified that prior to this time Bradley had never lodged a complaint with the Union regarding any inadequacies in his training, nor had he addressed any complaint to the joint employer-union apprenticeship board. Shortly after his complaints about the pay scale and lack of training, Bradley went on vacation. James talked over Bradley's complaint with his foreman and together they decided that they would best be met by transferring Bradley to the day shift where the greater number and variety of journeymen made the training opportunities far better. James then sent Bradley a letter dated October 9, 1970, which reads in full as follows: Due to vacations please come to work Wednesday morning at 8:30 instead of the evening shift. The letter was received by Bradley while still on vacation. At the same time, Respondent transferred another appren- tice from the day shift to Bradley's spot on the night shift. This transfer apparently came about because of Respon- dent's continuing need for a zinc etcher on the night shift. James does not explain what, if any, significance is to be found in the reference to "vacations" in the October 9 letter to Bradley. James states that his secretary wrote the letter and that he had only instructed her "to convey the message [he] wanted to Bradley to start on the day shift." There's nothing else on the record to indicate that the vacations of Bradley or anyone else played a part in the decision to transfer Bradley at this time . It is Respondent's firm assertion that the transfer was made solely to enable Bradley to receive more vaned training as he continued his apprenticeship. Upon receiving the October 9 letter, Bradley telephoned Respondent's foreman, James Brockett. Bradley undertook to explain his school situation. Brockett replied that the only job available to Bradley was on the day shift, and he specifically rejected Bradley's request that he be reassigned to the night shift. Brockett's response to Bradley's assertion that his college plans rendered it impossible for him to accept a job on the day shift was to state, "That's your problem." Later when Bradley came in to pick up his check he reiterated the same thing to James. Apparently little discussion ensued, but James repeated that a day shift job was the only one available to Bradley. As a result, in October 1970 in order to continue his college work, Bradley ceased working for Respondent. Bradley, a union member, sought assistance from the Union to get back his job on the night shift. According to Wilson, the Union did not regard Bradley's claim as meritorious and declined to pursue it. The charge in the instant case was filed with the Board on April 7, 1971. At some point thereafter, under circumstances not developed in the record, Bradley returned to work for Respondent as an apprentice on the night shift. At the time of the hearing, Bradley was still working for Respondent in that capacity. B. Discussion of the Issues and Conclusions The General Counsel contends (1) that Bradley engaged in protected concerted activity when he complained that Respondent was violating the collective-bargaining agree- ment as it applied to apprentices; (2) that the circum- stances establish that Respondent had violated section 14.7 of the collective-bargaining agreement; and (3) that Bradley's transfer to the day shift was made in retaliation for Bradley's effort to press the contract violation griev- ance, with full knowledge that such transfer would force Bradley to quit in order to pursue his college commitments and that therefore it effected his constructive discharge. As the General Counsel contends, an employee under- taking to enforce and implement an existing collective- bargaining agreement acts both for himself and his fellow employees, and thus he may be regarded as engaging in protected concerted activity. Retaliatory action by an employer directed at an employee for engaging in such conduct would, of course, be unlawful. This would be true whether or not there was in fact a violation of the contract, since it is the right of the employee to protest for himself GRAPHIC ARTS ENGRAVING CO., INC. and others that is protected, and not his accuracy, in correctly interpreting a contract.4 In the instant case, Bradley's complaint was clearly related to the contract. At first Bradley asked only for a higher pay scale. When this was rejected, he shifted ground and claimed, in effect, that Respondent was violating the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement since no journeyman specializing in zinc etching was working on the night shift. The General Counsel argues that a literal reading of section 14.7 of the contract requires that a journeyman specializing in the branch of the trade to which an apprentice is assigned must be present on any shift on which the apprentice is working. Admittedly, no zinc etching specialist worked on the night shift during most of the time that Bradley was there and assigned primarily to zinc etching. Respondent and the Union are less literal in their interpretation of the contract. They view the provision as relating to the entire work force rather than to each separate shift. They regard the contractual mandate as met when Respondent employs journeymen specializing in each of the branches and has a journeyman present on any shift who is capable of training an apprentice, even though thejourneyman may not specialize or work himself in the same branch as the apprentice. I deem it unnecessary to resolve the conflict. Even if Bradley be mistaken about the contract violation, he would be entitled to protection against retaliation for asserting that a violation had taken place. The central issue before us is not contract interpretation, but whether the alleged retaliatory transfer was unlawfully motivated. The whole purpose of an apprenticeship program is to train indentured apprentices in the skills of the trade. The program envisages that within 5 years apprentices working under proper guidance will attain the status of fully qualified journeymen. As set forth above, journeymen in the photoengraving trade are not usually equally skilled in every branch of the trade but usually specialize in one branch or another. The apprenticeship training program, however, requires that an apprentice receive training in each brahch to the end that he obtain broad knowledge of the trade as a whole, and find out which branch best suits his particular talents. As we have seen, Respondent's night shift, limited as it is both in numbers and variety, is a far less advantageous spot than the day shift for apprentice- ship training. The contract itself makes note of the basic advantage of day shift work for apprentices by requiring the approval of the union executive board whenever an employer seeks to transfer an apprentice to the night shift. This provision is clearly aimed as a safeguard against indiscriminate transfer which might suit an employer's work needs but would limit the apprentice's training. Bradley's initial transfer to the night shift, in September 1969, came about at his own request, and was approved by the union executive board. At the time, Bradley, the Respondent, and the Union appeared to be in accord that the transfer was compatible with Bradley's training. With the departure of the zinc etching journeyman in October, however, Bradley's training as a zinc etcher on the night 4 Bunney Brothers Construction Co, 139 NLRB 1516; A F Hubbs Contracting, 163 NLRB 292; B & M Excavating Inc, 155 NLRB 1152; New York Trap Rock Corporation, Nytralete Aggregate Division, 148 NLRB 374; 649 shift was left to journeymen working at, and specializing in, other branches of the trade and he was assigned only sporadically to other branches. Bradley soon began to view this situation as providing him with inadequate training, and in January he voiced a complaint to this effect to Respondent. Although his protest was promptly met by permitting him to work on the day shift during a week's semester break, at the end of this time the status quo resumed and continued until September . Presumably, during this entire period, Bradley found himself exposed to the same training inadequacies that had existed before, but not until September did he make any further complaint about the situation. In lodging his complaint with James in September, Bradley was of course not seeking a remedy that would remove him from the night shift . He was, however, charging that Respondent, by not having a zinc etching specialist on the night shift , and by failing to assign him to other branches, was not fulfilling its apprenticeship training obligations. Whether or not what had happened constituted a contract violation, Bradley's complaint clearly pointed to inadequacies in his training as an apprentice which Respondent was obligated to remedy in some manner. Possibly Respondent could have met the problem by assigning a zinc etching journeyman to the night shift, or by assigning Bradley to other work on the night shift. In view of the limited work done on the night shift, however, it is not clear whether this would have been practical, nor does it seem that Respondent would be required to remedy the situation in this manner if some other reasonable means of solving the problem were available. An obvious alternative existed in the transfer of Bradley to the day shift. There Bradley could be afforded an opportunity to receive training from journeymen in all branches of the trade, and would be working in a more fully staffed operation that would provide greater opportu- nities for moving from one branch to another. Respondent chose this means of meeting the training problem raised by Bradley's complaint. The choice seems both reasonable and appropriate and if not the only one, in all likelihood it constituted the best available means of remedying a training inadequacy which, at that time, had existed for nearly a year. A transfer for a reasonable purpose does not in and of itself suggest a retaliatory motive, and if one is to be found here, we must look to other factors which may suggest that despite the intrinsic reasonableness of the transfer, its underlying motivation was in some manner unlawful. The General Counsel argues that Bradley had antago- nized James by charging him with a contract violation, and that, in response, James, well aware that Bradley was attending college, made the transfer knowing full well its likely effect would be to force Bradley to quit. I see little, either in Bradley's history of employment with Respon- dent, or in the circumstances surrounding the September complaint, that supports an inference of this nature. Prior to the transfer itself, there is nothing in the record to signify that either James, or anyone else connected with Top Notch Manufacturing Company, Inc., 145 NLRB 429 , The Cooper Thermometor Company, 154 NLRB 502. 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent, was hostile either toward the apprenticeship program as a whole, or toward Bradley personally.5 It stands undisputed that James was a longtime supporter of the apprenticeship program in general. His hiring of Bradley as an exquota apprentice signifies a willingness on his part to make use of the program to its fullest extent. During the course of Bradley's employment, James had accommodated him both by initially permitting his transfer to the night shift, and, later, by meeting his initial complaint as to training by letting him work on the day shift during a semester break. While it might be argued that by permitting the status quo to remain on the night shift from January to September, James had been in some measure derelict in his obligation to further Bradley's training, prior to September Bradley had voiced no further complaint in this regard, and James' failure, on his own initiative, to change a situation of Bradley's own choosing scarcely suggests animus against Bradley. Thus I find nothing in this record concerning Bradley's history of employment which suggests dissatisfaction with Bradley's work on the employer's part, or signifies an underlying hostility toward him for any other reason.6 Absent evidence of preexisting animus toward Bradley, does the record support an inference that some animus later came into being in connection with Bradley's voicing his September complaint? The wage claim first put forth by Bradley may have been unwarranted, but Bradley made no effort to press it when James rejected it. James no doubt felt the claim of contract violation to have no merit, but his response to Bradley does not on its face show hostility or resentment, but rather signifies an acceptance of the proposition that Bradley had raised a legitimate complaint with regard to the training he was getting on the night shift. Contrary to the General Counsel, I see no basis for concluding that James "could not tolerate an apprentice accusing him of violating the apprentice standards." Nothing suggests the discussion to have been carried on in anger, or to have occurred in circumstances calculated to provoke a retaliatory response. It seems sheer conjecture to conclude, as the General Counsel argues, that the incident caused James to view Bradley as an "irritant that had to be removed." The principal support advanced for such an unlikely inference is claimed to be found in the seeming denial by James that he was fully aware of Bradley's school situation. Despite a persistent and somewhat puzzling attempt by James in his testimony to minimize the extent of his knowledge concerning Bradley's schooling, I am convinced that at all times James had general awareness of 5 Bradley testified that at one point, dunng August 1970, he had made a mistake while working on the night shift , and that the shift foreman had said to him, "That's just like a boot to blow a job and I'd rather not have boots or limier working for me " Bradley testified that he regarded the term "boot" to be a derogatory term referring to a Black . The foreman making the statement was no longer in Respondent's employ at the time of the hearing and did not testify James testified that this particular foreman was an Australian, and that the term "boot" was a common colloquial term used in Australia to refer to apprentices Under the circumstances, I do not see both Bradley's college attendance and plans. Contrary to the General Counsel, however, I do not see James' attempts to underplay this knowledge either as evidencing hostility toward Bradley, or as a deliberate effort to make it appear that the transfer came about in ignorance of Bradley's real school situation. I view James' seeming denial less as real disavowal of all knowledge than as an expression of relative indifference to Bradley's school plans whatever they might be. James was primarily concerned with carrying on his own business operation and would naturally view Bradley's apprenticeship in the light of its contribution toward this end. James had already demon- strated a willingness to make accommodations to Bradley's college plans when these coincided with his own business needs and Bradley's training. In September, however, Bradley had been on the night shift for over a year . His last complaint dated back to the preceding January. In the interim it had not been effectively remedied. While, as we have seen, it was not impossible to have contrived a remedy that would have kept Bradley on the night shift, the day shift offered substantially greater opportunities to contribute to Bradley's development as an apprentice. It is not unreasonable that James should attach greater weight to his own interests than to Bradley's school plans, and should choose the available alternative best suited to that purpose. In doing so, James was, in effect, telling Bradley that at this stage in his apprenticeship his best development required that he work on the day shift. Even though James may have known that such a change might prove unacceptable, to Bradley, absent something more, this does not suffice to establish an underlying retaliatory motive, and I so find. Accordingly, I find that Bradley, while attempting to correct what he deemed to be a contract violation and thus engaging in protected concerted activity, brought to James' attention certain training inadequacies and that James' subsequent transfer of Bradley to the day shift was not motivated by animus against Bradley for charging him with contract violations, but was made in an effort to remedy training inadequacies and to further the appren- ticeship program. Under the circumstances, I find that the transfer did not result in Bradley's constructive discharge, and therefore that Respondent did not engage in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] the incident as necessarily signifying animus against Bradley even on the part of the departed foreman Clearly it does not indicate hostility on the part of James, the one ultimately responsible for Bradley's transfer. 6 James testified that for some time poor to the transfer he had noted some deficiencies in Bradley's work performance Respondent , however, is not claiming that any dissatisfaction with Bradley 's work was responsible for the transfer I regard James' testimony in this regard as no more than an expression by James that Bradley needed more and better training than he had been getting