Gerson Electric Construction Co.

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gerson Electric Construction Company and James hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby Jennings. Case 13-CA-20580 is, dismissed in its entirety. December 10, 1981 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge: MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER A hearing was held on July 23-24, 1981, on complaint issued December 19, 1980, alleging a single violation of On August 31, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. At issue is whether William A. Gershuny issued the attached Decision Respondent unlawfully laid off electrician Jennings be- in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel cause of his efforts to enforce a contract provision con- cerning starting times on the job. filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re-ng starting times on the job. p enfiledexc ons andasw ping brief.Upon the entire record, including my observation of spondent filed an answering brief witness demeanor, I hereby make the following: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. 1. JURISDICTION The Board has considered the record and the at- The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find tached Decision in light of the exceptions and that Respondent, an electrical contractor, with annual briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- shipments of goods interstate in excess of $50,000, is an ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. the Act. OtRDER 1c. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED ORDER The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Local 134, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and 1Il. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the relevant period of 1980, Respondent was an In his exceptions, the General Counsel contends that the Administra- electrical contractor with several dozen jobs proceeding tive Law Judge failed to make any findings concerning the testimony of- concurrently in the Chicago area under a labor agree- fered by employee James R. Hicks, which tended to establish that Re- spondent did in fact plan to rid itself of employee James Jennings for rea- ment with IBEW Local 134. That contract contains a sons proscribed by the Act, and that the Board should therefore reverse grievance-arbitration procedure, a provision for appoint- the Administrative Law Judge's Decision concluding that Jennings had ment of job stewards by the Local Union business agent, not been unlawfully discharged. We find no merit in the General Coun- a provision absolutely banning any discrimination against sel's contention. Inasmuch as the Administrative Law Judge based his findings upon his "observation of witness demeanor," we conclude that it stewards "for the faithful performance of their duties" to is implicit in his general statement regarding credibility that he has dis- insure compliance with the contract, a provision giving credited Hicks' testimony, since it conflicts with the facts as described by contractors virtually unfettered rights to lay off employ- Respondent's officials, whose testimony, his Decision makes clear, he has ees or transfer them from job-to-job within the geo- completely credited. Kimball Tire Co.. Inc., 240 NLRB 343, 344, fn. 5 (1979). Therefore, in considering the General Counsel's exceptions to cer- graphical jurisdiction of the Local Union, and a provi- tain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge, we have sion giving no seniority protection to workmen such as also reviewed his implicit resolution with respect to Hicks. It is the those here. Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's Two of Respondent's jobsites are involved in this case. resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incor- At the Transportation Building on South Dearborn rect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 Street, Respondent obtained permission from a Local F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find Union business agent to vary the contract starting time no basis for reversing his findings. and begin work at 7 a.m. On September 23, 1980, six In sec. II, par. 2, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge foundr that Jennings and another employee were transferred from Respondent's electricians, including Jennings, were referred by the Transportation Building jobsite to its Hampton House jobsite on Septem- Local Union to this job. In his I week on the job, Jen- ber 30, 1980. The record reveals that Respondent transferred two em- nings, who was not the steward, complained to another ployees from the Transportation Building, but only Jennings was assigned business agent about the starting time and had heated dis- to the Hampton House site. The error is hereby corrected. Member Jenkins does not rely on Wright Line. a Division of Wright cussions with Foreman Morton as to the availability of Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). That decision concerns identifying the toilets and water, the safe use of the staircase and man- cause of discharge where a genuine lawful and genuine unlawful reason lift, his right to drink coffee on the job, and his right to exist. Where, as here, the asserted unlawful reasons (Jennings' activities) leave the jobsite to put money in parking meters. On were not to any degree a motiviating factor in Respondent's decision, only one genuine reason remains-the lawful one. The attempt to apply September 30, Jennings and another employee were Wright Line in such a situation is futile, confusing, and misleading. transferred to the Hampton House job site in South Chi- 259 NLRB No. 88 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gerson Electric Construction Company and James hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby Jennings. Case 13-CA-20580 is, dismissed in its entirety. December 10, 1981 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge: MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER A hearing w a s h e l d on July 2 3- 2 4 , 19 8 1, o n complaint issued December 19, 1980, alleging a single violation of On August 31, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. At issue is whether William A. Gershuny issued the attached Decision Respondent unlawfully laid off electrician Jennings be- in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel c au se o f h i s ef o rt s t o en fo rc e a c o nt rac t provision c o n - ceming starting times on the job. filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re- U t ei r d i observation of spondent filed an answering brief.itness demeanor, I hereby make the following: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. r. JURISDICTION The Board has considered the record and the at- The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find tached Decision in light of the exceptions and that Respondent, an electrical contractor, with annual briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- shipments of goods interstate in excess of $50,000, is an ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER 11. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED ORDER The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Local 134, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and 111. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the relevant period of 1980, Respondent was an 'In his exceptions, the General Counsel contends that the Administra- electrical contractor with Several dozen jobs proceeding tive Law Judge failed to make any findings concerning the testimony of- concurrently in the Chicago area under a labor agree- fered by employee James R. Hicks, which tended to establish that Re- . tn T l \tA Tkat con»^oct ^^lainc o spondent did in fact plan to rid itself of employee James Jennings for rea- m en t w it h IB E W L o ca l 134 . T h at contract contains a sons proscribed by the Act, and that the Board should therefore reverse grievance-arbitration procedure, a provision for appoint- the Administrative Law Judge's Decision concluding that Jennings had ment of job Stewards by the Local Union business agent, not been unlawfully discharged. We find no merit in the General Coun- a provision absolutely banning any discrimination against sel's contention. Inasmuch as the Administrative Law Judge based his , .,,. ., ,. ..,,. , r r .1. * findings upon his "observation of witness demeanor," we conclude that it stewards "for the faithful performance of their duties to is implicit in his general statement regarding credibility that he has dis- insure compliance With the contract, a provision giving credited Hicks' testimony, since it conflicts with the facts as described by contractors virtually unfettered rights to lay off employ- Respondent's officials, whose testimony, his Decision makes clear, he has ees or transfer them from job-to-job within the geo- completely credited. Kimball Tire Co.. Inc., 240 NLRB 343, 344, fn. 5 , . . ,. . - ,. J , (1979). Therefore, in considering the General Counsel's exceptions to cer- graphical jurisdiction of the Local Union, and a provi- tain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge, we have Sion giving no seniority protection to workmen Such as also reviewed his implicit resolution with respect to Hicks. It is the those here. Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's Two of Respondent's jobsites are involved in this Case. resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incor- At the Transportation Building on South Dearborn rect. Standard Dry Wall products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 1988 Street, Respondent obtained permission from a Local F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find Union business agent to vary the contract Starting time no basis for reversing his findings. and begin work at 7 a.m. On September 23, 1980, six In sec. Ill, par. 2, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that Jennings and another employee were transferred from Respondent's electricians, including Jennings, were referred by the Transportation Building jobsite to its Hampton House jobsite on Septem-_ Local Union to this job. In his 1 week On the job, Jen- ber 30, 1980. The record reveals that Respondent transferred two em- nings, who was not the Steward, complained to another ployees from the Transportation Building, but only Jennings was assigned business agent about the starting time and had heated dis- to the Hampton House site. The error is hereby corrected. Member Jenkins does not rely on Wright Line. a Division of Wright cuSSiOns With Foreman Morton as to the availability of Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). That decision concerns identifying the toilets and water, the safe use of the staircase and man- cause of discharge where a genuine lawful and genuine unlawful reason lift, his right to drink coffee On the job, and his right to exist. Where, as here, the asserted unlawful reasons (Jennings' activities) leave the jobsite to put money in parking meters. On were not to any degree a motiviating factor in Respondent's decision, only one genuine reason remains-the lawful one. The attempt to apply September 30, Jennings and another employee were Wright Line in such a situation is futile, confusing, and misleading. transferred to the Hampton House job site in South Chi- 259 NLRB No. 88 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gerson Electric Construction Company and James hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby Jennings. Case 13-CA-20580 is, dismissed in its entirety. December 10, 1981 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge: MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER A hearing w a s h e l d on July 2 3- 2 4 , 19 8 1, o n complaint issued December 19, 1980, alleging a single violation of On August 31, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. At issue is whether William A. Gershuny issued the attached Decision Respondent unlawfully laid off electrician Jennings be- in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel c au se o f h i s ef o rt s t o en fo rc e a c o nt rac t provision c o n - ceming starting times on the job. filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re- U t ei r d i observation of spondent filed an answering brief.itness demeanor, I hereby make the following: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. r. JURISDICTION The Board has considered the record and the at- The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find tached Decision in light of the exceptions and that Respondent, an electrical contractor, with annual briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- shipments of goods interstate in excess of $50,000, is an ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER 11. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED ORDER The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Local 134, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and 111. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the relevant period of 1980, Respondent was an 'In his exceptions, the General Counsel contends that the Administra- electrical contractor with Several dozen jobs proceeding tive Law Judge failed to make any findings concerning the testimony of- concurrently in the Chicago area under a labor agree- fered by employee James R. Hicks, which tended to establish that Re- . tn T l \tA Tkat con»^oct ^^lainc o spondent did in fact plan to rid itself of employee James Jennings for rea- m en t w it h IB E W L o ca l 134 . T h at contract contains a sons proscribed by the Act, and that the Board should therefore reverse grievance-arbitration procedure, a provision for appoint- the Administrative Law Judge's Decision concluding that Jennings had ment of job Stewards by the Local Union business agent, not been unlawfully discharged. We find no merit in the General Coun- a provision absolutely banning any discrimination against sel's contention. Inasmuch as the Administrative Law Judge based his , .,,. ., ,. ..,,. , r r .1. * findings upon his "observation of witness demeanor," we conclude that it stewards "for the faithful performance of their duties to is implicit in his general statement regarding credibility that he has dis- insure compliance With the contract, a provision giving credited Hicks' testimony, since it conflicts with the facts as described by contractors virtually unfettered rights to lay off employ- Respondent's officials, whose testimony, his Decision makes clear, he has ees or transfer them from job-to-job within the geo- completely credited. Kimball Tire Co.. Inc., 240 NLRB 343, 344, fn. 5 , . . ,. . - ,. J , (1979). Therefore, in considering the General Counsel's exceptions to cer- graphical jurisdiction of the Local Union, and a provi- tain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge, we have Sion giving no seniority protection to workmen Such as also reviewed his implicit resolution with respect to Hicks. It is the those here. Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's Two of Respondent's jobsites are involved in this Case. resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incor- At the Transportation Building on South Dearborn rect. Standard Dry Wall products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 1988 Street, Respondent obtained permission from a Local F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find Union business agent to vary the contract Starting time no basis for reversing his findings. and begin work at 7 a.m. On September 23, 1980, six In sec. Ill, par. 2, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that Jennings and another employee were transferred from Respondent's electricians, including Jennings, were referred by the Transportation Building jobsite to its Hampton House jobsite on Septem-_ Local Union to this job. In his 1 week On the job, Jen- ber 30, 1980. The record reveals that Respondent transferred two em- nings, who was not the Steward, complained to another ployees from the Transportation Building, but only Jennings was assigned business agent about the starting time and had heated dis- to the Hampton House site. The error is hereby corrected. Member Jenkins does not rely on Wright Line. a Division of Wright cuSSiOns With Foreman Morton as to the availability of Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). That decision concerns identifying the toilets and water, the safe use of the staircase and man- cause of discharge where a genuine lawful and genuine unlawful reason lift, his right to drink coffee On the job, and his right to exist. Where, as here, the asserted unlawful reasons (Jennings' activities) leave the jobsite to put money in parking meters. On were not to any degree a motiviating factor in Respondent's decision, only one genuine reason remains-the lawful one. The attempt to apply September 30, Jennings and another employee were Wright Line in such a situation is futile, confusing, and misleading. transferred to the Hampton House job site in South Chi- 259 NLRB No. 88 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gerson Electric Construction Company and James hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby Jennings. Case 13-CA-20580 is, dismissed in its entirety. December 10, 1981 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge: MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER A hearing w a s h e l d on July 2 3- 2 4 , 19 8 1, o n complaint issued December 19, 1980, alleging a single violation of On August 31, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. At issue is whether William A. Gershuny issued the attached Decision Respondent unlawfully laid off electrician Jennings be- in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel c au se o f h i s ef o rt s t o en fo rc e a c o nt rac t provision c o n - ceming starting times on the job. filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re- U t ei r d i observation of spondent filed an answering brief.itness demeanor, I hereby make the following: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. r. JURISDICTION The Board has considered the record and the at- The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find tached Decision in light of the exceptions and that Respondent, an electrical contractor, with annual briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- shipments of goods interstate in excess of $50,000, is an ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER 11. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED ORDER The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Local 134, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and 111. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the relevant period of 1980, Respondent was an 'In his exceptions, the General Counsel contends that the Administra- electrical contractor with Several dozen jobs proceeding tive Law Judge failed to make any findings concerning the testimony of- concurrently in the Chicago area under a labor agree- fered by employee James R. Hicks, which tended to establish that Re- . tn T l \tA Tkat con»^oct ^^lainc o spondent did in fact plan to rid itself of employee James Jennings for rea- m en t w it h IB E W L o ca l 134 . T h at contract contains a sons proscribed by the Act, and that the Board should therefore reverse grievance-arbitration procedure, a provision for appoint- the Administrative Law Judge's Decision concluding that Jennings had ment of job Stewards by the Local Union business agent, not been unlawfully discharged. We find no merit in the General Coun- a provision absolutely banning any discrimination against sel's contention. Inasmuch as the Administrative Law Judge based his , .,,. ., ,. ..,,. , r r .1. * findings upon his "observation of witness demeanor," we conclude that it stewards "for the faithful performance of their duties to is implicit in his general statement regarding credibility that he has dis- insure compliance With the contract, a provision giving credited Hicks' testimony, since it conflicts with the facts as described by contractors virtually unfettered rights to lay off employ- Respondent's officials, whose testimony, his Decision makes clear, he has ees or transfer them from job-to-job within the geo- completely credited. Kimball Tire Co.. Inc., 240 NLRB 343, 344, fn. 5 , . . ,. . - ,. J , (1979). Therefore, in considering the General Counsel's exceptions to cer- graphical jurisdiction of the Local Union, and a provi- tain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge, we have Sion giving no seniority protection to workmen Such as also reviewed his implicit resolution with respect to Hicks. It is the those here. Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's Two of Respondent's jobsites are involved in this Case. resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incor- At the Transportation Building on South Dearborn rect. Standard Dry Wall products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 1988 Street, Respondent obtained permission from a Local F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find Union business agent to vary the contract Starting time no basis for reversing his findings. and begin work at 7 a.m. On September 23, 1980, six In sec. Ill, par. 2, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that Jennings and another employee were transferred from Respondent's electricians, including Jennings, were referred by the Transportation Building jobsite to its Hampton House jobsite on Septem-_ Local Union to this job. In his 1 week On the job, Jen- ber 30, 1980. The record reveals that Respondent transferred two em- nings, who was not the Steward, complained to another ployees from the Transportation Building, but only Jennings was assigned business agent about the starting time and had heated dis- to the Hampton House site. The error is hereby corrected. Member Jenkins does not rely on Wright Line. a Division of Wright cuSSiOns With Foreman Morton as to the availability of Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). That decision concerns identifying the toilets and water, the safe use of the staircase and man- cause of discharge where a genuine lawful and genuine unlawful reason lift, his right to drink coffee On the job, and his right to exist. Where, as here, the asserted unlawful reasons (Jennings' activities) leave the jobsite to put money in parking meters. On were not to any degree a motiviating factor in Respondent's decision, only one genuine reason remains-the lawful one. The attempt to apply September 30, Jennings and another employee were Wright Line in such a situation is futile, confusing, and misleading. transferred to the Hampton House job site in South Chi- 259 NLRB No. 88 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gerson Electric Construction Company and James hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby Jennings. Case 13-CA-20580 is, dismissed in its entirety. December 10, 1981 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge: MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER A hearing w a s h e l d on July 2 3- 2 4 , 19 8 1, o n complaint issued December 19, 1980, alleging a single violation of On August 31, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. At issue is whether William A. Gershuny issued the attached Decision Respondent unlawfully laid off electrician Jennings be- in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel c au se o f h i s ef o rt s t o en fo rc e a c o nt rac t provision c o n - ceming starting times on the job. filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re- U t ei r d i observation of spondent filed an answering brief.itness demeanor, I hereby make the following: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. r. JURISDICTION The Board has considered the record and the at- The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find tached Decision in light of the exceptions and that Respondent, an electrical contractor, with annual briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- shipments of goods interstate in excess of $50,000, is an ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER 11. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED ORDER The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Local 134, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and 111. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the relevant period of 1980, Respondent was an 'In his exceptions, the General Counsel contends that the Administra- electrical contractor with Several dozen jobs proceeding tive Law Judge failed to make any findings concerning the testimony of- concurrently in the Chicago area under a labor agree- fered by employee James R. Hicks, which tended to establish that Re- . tn T l \tA That con»^oct ^^lainc o spondent did in fact plan to rid itself of employee James Jennings for rea- m en t w it h IB E W L o ca l 134 . T h at contract contains a sons proscribed by the Act, and that the Board should therefore reverse grievance-arbitration procedure, a provision for appoint- the Administrative Law Judge's Decision concluding that Jennings had ment of job Stewards by the Local Union business agent, not been unlawfully discharged. We find no merit in the General Coun- a provision absolutely banning any discrimination against sel's contention. Inasmuch as the Administrative Law Judge based his , .,,. ., ,. ..,,. , r r .1. * findings upon his "observation of witness demeanor," we conclude that it stewards "for the faithful performance of their duties to is implicit in his general statement regarding credibility that he has dis- insure compliance With the contract, a provision giving credited Hicks' testimony, since it conflicts with the facts as described by contractors virtually unfettered rights to lay off employ- Respondent's officials, whose testimony, his Decision makes clear, he has ees or transfer them from job-to-job within the geo- completely credited. Kimball Tire Co.. Inc., 240 NLRB 343, 344, fn. 5 , . . ,. . - ,. J , (1979). Therefore, in considering the General Counsel's exceptions to cer- graphical jurisdiction of the Local Union, and a provi- tain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge, we have Sion giving no seniority protection to workmen Such as also reviewed his implicit resolution with respect to Hicks. It is the those here. Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's Two of Respondent's jobsites are involved in this Case. resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incor- At the Transportation Building on South Dearborn rect. Standard Dry Wall products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 1988 Street, Respondent obtained permission from a Local F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find Union business agent to vary the contract Starting time no basis for reversing his findings. and begin work at 7 a.m. On September 23, 1980, six In sec. Ill, par. 2, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that Jennings and another employee were transferred from Respondent's electricians, including Jennings, were referred by the Transportation Building jobsite to its Hampton House jobsite on Septem-_ Local Union to this job. In his 1 week On the job, Jen- ber 30, 1980. The record reveals that Respondent transferred two em- nings, who was not the Steward, complained to another ployees from the Transportation Building, but only Jennings was assigned business agent about the starting time and had heated dis- to the Hampton House site. The error is hereby corrected. Member Jenkins does not rely on Wright Line. a Division of Wright cuSSiOns With Foreman Morton as to the availability of Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). That decision concerns identifying the toilets and water, the safe use of the staircase and man- cause of discharge where a genuine lawful and genuine unlawful reason lift, his right to drink coffee On the job, and his right to exist. Where, as here, the asserted unlawful reasons (Jennings' activities) leave the jobsite to put money in parking meters. On were not to any degree a motiviating factor in Respondent's decision, only one genuine reason remains-the lawful one. The attempt to apply September 30, Jennings and another employee were Wright Line in such a situation is futile, confusing, and misleading. transferred to the Hampton House job site in South Chi- 259 NLRB No. 88 GERSON ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO. 641 cago. It is noteworthy that counsel for the General Sembinini concerning difficulties in gaining access to sev- Counsel makes no contention here that this transfer was eral occupied apartments at the same time to permit violative of the Act; that no grievance was filed by Jen- wiring and nondelivery of custom metering and fire- nings; that a discrimination charge was filed by Jennings escape lighting materials. It was then decided to shut with OSHA based on his safety complaints; and that Jen- down the job until the problems could be resolved, de- nings later filed an intraunion charge against Foreman spite the fact that the work had only recently resumed (and Union member) Morton which did not refer to a and Respondent was anxious to retain the good will of starting time dispute with Morton. the customer. The Hampton House job, commenced in 1978, but in- Several days later, the apartment access problem was terrupted from June until September 22, 1980, because of resolved, overdue deliveries were received, and work a contract dispute with the owner, consisted of the reha- was resumed on October 8, 1980, the following Wednes- bilitation of an occupied apartment building and its con- day. Because the two other electricians were working version to condominium apartments. Between September for Respondent on another site, they were reassigned to 22 and 30, the work was performed by Foreman (and the Hampton House job. Later, five other electricians union member) Hammersmith and two electricians; on were put on the job and remained until its completion on September 30, because of manpower needs, Jennings was February 3, 1981 transferred to the job where he remained for 3 days until A , i i n Again, it is noteworthy that Jennings did not gnrieve October 3, when the job again was temporarily shut this layoff because admittedly he felt it was legal down by Respondent for reasons and under circum- this layoff, because, admittedly, he felt it was legal. down by Respondent for reasons and under circum- I am unable to credit Jennings' testimony for a number stances detailed below. At this jobsite, as in the case of f reamsons First, I et Jeings testlmony for an thater the other, Respondent earlier had obtained permission of reasons. First, I am left with the clear impression that the other, Respondent earlier had obtained permission his court room version of the facts was tailored to meet from a local business agent to begin work at 7 a.m.his court room version of the facts was tailored to m i eet from a local business agent to begin work at 7 a.m. Upon reporting late to the Hampton House job, Jen- counsel's legal theory as opposed to representing his best nings briefly met with Foreman Hammersmith, was recollection of past events. In this regard, it is interesting briefed on the work to be done and, in turn, talked about that, in 1980, he filed no gevance under the labor his "problems" with Foreman Morton on the last job. agreement because he was convinced that the October 3 Hammersmith advised Jennings not to be concerned be- layoff was "legal," despite the fact that, if, as contended cause, here, he started with a clean slate. Jennings met now, the layoff were because of his efforts as a steward with the two other electricians, who were working as a to enforce the starting provisions of the contract, it team installing new metering for each apartment, briefly clearly would have violated article VIII of the contract discussed and agreed to go along with the 7 a.m. starting which provides: "Under no circumstances shall stewards time and, apparently, was "elected" steward by default. be discriminated against for the faithful performance of Jennings advised Hammersmith of his intent to raise the their duties as such"; that the starting time controversy starting time issue at the next Local Union meeting. That with Foreman Morton of which much was made at the meeting was held on October 2 and Jennings did not hearing was not referred to in his written intraunion demand an 8 a.m. starting time until Friday morning, Oc- charge against Morton; and that his OSHA discrimina- tober 3, when he met with Hammersmith. tion charge was based on a contention that the layoff Later, during the morning of October 3, Hammersmith was motivated because of his safety complaints at the advised Jennings and the two other electricians that the earlier jobsite. Second, his testimony represents over- job again was to be shut down and that Respondent's statements and exaggerations. In this connection, Jen- personnel manager had been asked to determine if there nings went to great lengths to establish knowledge by were other Respondent jobs to which the three men Foreman Hammersmith of Jennings' safety and contract might be transferred. Jennings complained that Respond- complaints and his difficulties with Foreman Morton at ent was out to get him and that he wanted a layoff the first jobsite, testifying that, after arriving 1 hour late rather than a transfer. Temporary positions were found at the Hampton House job, he bared his prior work his- for the other two, more senior electricians, but none was tory to Hammersmith for 2 hours before commencing available for Jennings who, thereafter, was laid off. On work. This testimony is contradicted not only by Ham- the same day, Respondent laid off 10 other electricians mersmith, but also by coemployee Hicks and seeks, un- from other jobs. successfully, to convince me that a foreman would be so Jennings was aware of the effects of a layoff, as op- interested in the tale as to permit 3 hours of nonproducti- posed to a transfer. In the former case, he would be enti- vity at $15.15 an hour at a job which recently resumed tied to unemployment compensation, but could be re- after a lengthy shutdown over a price dispute with the turned to work only through the Local Union's referral owner. Third, Jennings sought hard to establish that he system. In the latter case, he would continue to work was steward on this 3-day, three-man job and had full within the Local Union's geographical jurisdiction at the knowledge of Respondent's access to materials and its same rate of pay and at the same position and could be ability to continue the job uninterrupted. Of course, on returned to work at Hampton House when the job was the first day of his 3 days on the job, he was 1 hour late, resumed. related his work history to the foreman for 2 hours and The Friday morning decision to temporarily close apparently spent considerable time away from his work down the Hampton House job, as credibly testified to by area visiting the other two electricians to discuss ap- Respondent's officials, followed discussions on Thursday pointment of a steward, telephoning the Local Union morning between Hammersmith and Project Manager office and busying himself with the weekly steward GERSON ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO. 641 cago. It is noteworthy that counsel for the General Sembinini concerning difficulties in gaining access to sev- Counsel makes no contention here that this transfer was eral occupied apartments at the same time to permit violative of the Act; that no grievance was filed by Jen- wiring and nondelivery of custom metering and fire- nings; that a discrimination charge was filed by Jennings escape lighting materials. It was then decided to shut with OSHA based on his safety complaints; and that Jen- down the job until the problems could be resolved, de- nings later filed an intraunion charge against Foreman spite the fact that the work had only recently resumed (and Union member) Morton which did not refer to a and Respondent was anxious to retain the good will of starting time dispute with Morton. the customer. The Hampton House job, commenced in 1978, but in- Several days later, the apartment access problem was terrupted from June until September 22, 1980, because of resolved, overdue deliveries were received, and work a contract dispute with the owner, consisted of the reha- was resumed on October 8, 1980, the following Wednes- bilitation of an occupied apartment building and its con- day. Because the two other electricians were working version to condominium apartments. Between September for Respondent on another site, they were reassigned to 22 and 30, the work was performed by Foreman (and the Hampton House job. Later, five other electricians union member) Hammersmith and two electricians; on were put on the job and remained until its completion on September 30, because of manpower needs, Jennings was February 3, 1981. transferred to the job where he remained for 3 days until A, i i n t Jn g did n grieve i^, - i. , , .i. . i. . . .,' , Again, it is noteworthy that Jennings did not gnieve October 3, when the job again was temporarily shut t lo bcu , a ie, he f it wa lg. down by Respondent for reasons and under circum- I th a s l ay of f b b ec a us e d itJeiedsy, he felt it was legal. stances detailed below. At this jobsite, as in the case of I am u na sF e to credit Jennings testimony for a number the other, Respondent earlier had obtained permission o f r ea so n urt F r s t, l am l e f t w o t h t h e c l ea rtipressdon that from a local business agent to begin work at 7 a.m. h l s c o u r t r o o m v e r s n o n o f t h e f a c t s w a s ta o lo r ed t o r i eet Upon reporting late to the Hampton House job, Jen- rc o u ns el l siego th eo r v a s opposed to representing his best nings briefly met with Foreman Hammersmith, was recollection of past events. In this regard, it is interesting briefed on the work to be done and, in turn, talked about t h a t g en 198 0 b h e a l ed c° onvance under the labor his "problems" with Foreman Morton on the last job. lagreement because he was convinced that the October 3 Hammersmith advised Jennings not to be concerned be- "V0 11 w as " le gal ," ^pie the fact that, if, as contended cause, here, he started with a clean slate. Jennings met n o w , t h e layoff w er e because of his efforts as a steward with the two other electricians, who were working as a t o enforce the starting provisions of the contract, it team installing new metering for each apartment, briefly clearly would have violated article VIII of the contract discussed and agreed to go along with the 7 a.m. starting w h ic h provides: "Under no circumstances shall stewards time and, apparently, was "elected" steward by default. b e discriminated against for the faithful performance of Jennings advised Hammersmith of his intent to raise the their duties as such"; that the starting time controversy starting time issue at the next Local Union meeting. That w i th Foreman Morton of which much was made at the meeting was held on October 2 and Jennings did not hearing was not referred to in his written intraunion demand an 8 a.m. starting time until Friday morning, Oc- charge against Morton; and that his OSHA discrimina- tober 3, when he met with Hammersmith. t io n charge was based on a contention that the layoff Later, during the morning of October 3, Hammersmith w a s motivated because of his safety complaints at the advised Jennings and the two other electricians that the earlier jobsite. Second, his testimony represents over- job again was to be shut down and that Respondent's statements and exaggerations. In this connection, Jen- personnel manager had been asked to determine if there nings w e n t to great lengths to establish knowledge by were other Respondent jobs to which the three men Foreman Hammersmith of Jennings' safety and contract might be transferred. Jennings complained that Respond- complaints and his difficulties with Foreman Morton at ent was out to get him and that he wanted a layoff t h e fi r s t jobsite, testifying that, after arriving 1 hour late rather than a transfer. Temporary positions were found a t the Hampton House job, he bared his prior work his- for the other two, more senior electricians, but none was tory to Hammersmith for 2 hours before commencing available for Jennings who, thereafter, was laid off. On work. This testimony is contradicted not only by Ham- the same day, Respondent laid off 10 other electricians mersmith, but also by coemployee Hicks and seeks, un- from other jobs. successfully, to convince me that a foreman would be so Jennings was aware of the effects of a layoff, as op- interested in the tale as to permit 3 hours of nonproducti- posed to a transfer. In the former case, he would be enti- vity at $15.15 an hour at a job which recently resumed tied to unemployment compensation, but could be re- after a lengthy shutdown over a price dispute with the turned to work only through the Local Union's referral owner. Third, Jennings sought hard to establish that he system. In the latter case, he would continue to work was steward on this 3-day, three-man job and had full within the Local Union's geographical jurisdiction at the knowledge of Respondent's access to materials and its same rate of pay and at the same position and could be ability to continue the job uninterrupted. Of course, on returned to work at Hampton House when the job was the first day of his 3 days on the job, he was 1 hour late, resumed. related his work history to the foreman for 2 hours and The Friday morning decision to temporarily close apparently spent considerable time away from his work down the Hampton House job, as credibly testified to by area visiting the other two electricians to discuss ap- Respondent's officials, followed discussions on Thursday pointment of a steward, telephoning the Local Union morning between Hammersmith and Project Manager office and busying himself with the weekly steward GERSON ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO. 641 cago. It is noteworthy that counsel for the General Sembinini concerning difficulties in gaining access to sev- Counsel makes no contention here that this transfer was eral occupied apartments at the same time to permit violative of the Act; that no grievance was filed by Jen- wiring and nondelivery of custom metering and fire- nings; that a discrimination charge was filed by Jennings escape lighting materials. It was then decided to shut with OSHA based on his safety complaints; and that Jen- down the job until the problems could be resolved, de- nings later filed an intraunion charge against Foreman spite the fact that the work had only recently resumed (and Union member) Morton which did not refer to a and Respondent was anxious to retain the good will of starting time dispute with Morton. the customer. The Hampton House job, commenced in 1978, but in- Several days later, the apartment access problem was terrupted from June until September 22, 1980, because of resolved, overdue deliveries were received, and work a contract dispute with the owner, consisted of the reha- was resumed on October 8, 1980, the following Wednes- bilitation of an occupied apartment building and its con- day. Because the two other electricians were working version to condominium apartments. Between September for Respondent on another site, they were reassigned to 22 and 30, the work was performed by Foreman (and the Hampton House job. Later, five other electricians union member) Hammersmith and two electricians; on were put on the job and remained until its completion on September 30, because of manpower needs, Jennings was February 3, 1981. transferred to the job where he remained for 3 days until A, i i n t Jn g did n grieve i^, - i. , , .i. . i. . . .,' , Again, it is noteworthy that Jennings did not gnieve October 3, when the job again was temporarily shut t lo bcu , a ie, he f it wa lg. down by Respondent for reasons and under circum- th ls l ay of f m b ec a us e, admittedly, he felt it was legal. stances detailed below. At this jobsite, as in the case of I am u na sF e to credit Jennings testimony for a number the other, Respondent earlier had obtained permission o f r ea so n urt F r s t, l am l e f t w o t h t h e fcs ar impression that from a local business agent to begin work at 7 a.m. h l s c o u r t r o o m v e r s n o n o f t h e f a c t s w a s ta o lo re d t o m eet Upon reporting late to the Hampton House job, Jen- rc o u ns el l stego o eory as opposed to representing his best nings briefly met with Foreman Hammersmith, was recollection of past events. In this regard, it is interesting briefed on the work to be done and, in turn, talked about t h a t g en 198 0 b he wsed o grievance under the labor his "problems" with Foreman Morton on the last job. lagreement because he was convinced that the October 3 Hammersmith advised Jennings not to be concerned be- "V0 11 w as '^egal." despite the fact that, if, as contended cause, here, he started with a clean slate. Jennings met n o w , t h e layoff w er e because of his efforts as a steward with the two other electricians, who were working as a t o enforce the starting provisions of the contract, it team installing new metering for each apartment, briefly clearly would have violated article VIII of the contract discussed and agreed to go along with the 7 a.m. starting which provides: "Under no circumstances shall stewards time and, apparently, was "elected" steward by default. b e discriminated against for the faithful performance of Jennings advised Hammersmith of his intent to raise the their duties as such"; that the starting time controversy starting time issue at the next Local Union meeting. That with Foreman Morton of which much was made at the meeting was held on October 2 and Jennings did not hearing was not referred to in his written intraunion demand an 8 a.m. starting time until Friday morning, Oc- charge against Morton; and that his OSHA discrimina- tober 3, when he met with Hammersmith. t io n charge was based on a contention that the layoff Later, during the morning of October 3, Hammersmith was motivated because of his safety complaints at the advised Jennings and the two other electricians that the earlier jobsite. Second, his testimony represents over- job again was to be shut down and that Respondent's statements and exaggerations. In this connection, Jen- personnel manager had been asked to determine if there nings went to great lengths to establish knowledge by were other Respondent jobs to which the three men Foreman Hammersmith of Jennings' safety and contract might be transferred. Jennings complained that Respond- complaints and his difficulties with Foreman Morton at ent was out to get him and that he wanted a layoff t h e fi r s t jobsite, testifying that, after arriving 1 hour late rather than a transfer. Temporary positions were found at the Hampton House job, he bared his prior work his- for the other two, more senior electricians, but none was tory to Hammersmith for 2 hours before commencing available for Jennings who, thereafter, was laid off. On work. This testimony is contradicted not only by Ham- the same day, Respondent laid off 10 other electricians mersmith, but also by coemployee Hicks and seeks, un- from other jobs. successfully, to convince me that a foreman would be so Jennings was aware of the effects of a layoff, as op- interested in the tale as to permit 3 hours of nonproducti- posed to a transfer. In the former case, he would be enti- vity at $15.15 an hour at a job which recently resumed tied to unemployment compensation, but could be re- after a lengthy shutdown over a price dispute with the turned to work only through the Local Union's referral owner. Third, Jennings sought hard to establish that he system. In the latter case, he would continue to work was steward on this 3-day, three-man job and had full within the Local Union's geographical jurisdiction at the knowledge of Respondent's access to materials and its same rate of pay and at the same position and could be ability to continue the job uninterrupted. Of course, on returned to work at Hampton House when the job was the first day of his 3 days on the job, he was 1 hour late, resumed. related his work history to the foreman for 2 hours and The Friday morning decision to temporarily close apparently spent considerable time away from his work down the Hampton House job, as credibly testified to by area visiting the other two electricians to discuss ap- Respondent's officials, followed discussions on Thursday pointment of a steward, telephoning the Local Union morning between Hammersmith and Project Manager office and busying himself with the weekly steward GERSON ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO. 641 cago. It is noteworthy that counsel for the General Sembinini concerning difficulties in gaining access to sev- Counsel makes no contention here that this transfer was eral occupied apartments at the same time to permit violative of the Act; that no grievance was filed by Jen- wiring and nondelivery of custom metering and fire- nings; that a discrimination charge was filed by Jennings escape lighting materials. It was then decided to shut with OSHA based on his safety complaints; and that Jen- down the job until the problems could be resolved, de- nings later filed an intraunion charge against Foreman spite the fact that the work had only recently resumed (and Union member) Morton which did not refer to a and Respondent was anxious to retain the good will of starting time dispute with Morton. the customer. The Hampton House job, commenced in 1978, but in- Several days later, the apartment access problem was terrupted from June until September 22, 1980, because of resolved, overdue deliveries were received, and work a contract dispute with the owner, consisted of the reha- was resumed on October 8, 1980, the following Wednes- bilitation of an occupied apartment building and its con- day. Because the two other electricians were working version to condominium apartments. Between September for Respondent on another site, they were reassigned to 22 and 30, the work was performed by Foreman (and the Hampton House job. Later, five other electricians union member) Hammersmith and two electricians; on were put on the job and remained until its completion on September 30, because of manpower needs, Jennings was February 3, 1981. transferred to the job where he remained for 3 days until A, i i n t Jn g did n grieve i^, - i. , , .i. . i. . . .,' , Again, it is noteworthy that Jennings did not gnieve October 3, when the job again was temporarily shut t lo bcu , a ie, he f it wa lg. down by Respondent for reasons and under circum- th ls l ay of f m b ec a us e, admittedly, he felt it was legal. stances detailed below. At this jobsite, as in the case of I am u na sF e to credit Jennings testimony for a number the other, Respondent earlier had obtained permission o f r ea so n urt F r s t, l am l e f t w o t h t h e ft ear impression that from a local business agent to begin work at 7 a.m. h l s c o u r t r o o m v e r s n o n o f t h e f a c t s w a s ta o lo re d t o m eet Upon reporting late to the Hampton House job, Jen- c o u ns el l s oegal theory as opposed to representing his best nings briefly met with Foreman Hammersmith, was recollection of past events. In this regard, it is interesting briefed on the work to be done and, in turn, talked about t h a t g en 198 0 b he wsed o grievance under the labor his "problems" with Foreman Morton on the last job. lagreement because he was convinced that the October 3 Hammersmith advised Jennings not to be concerned be- "V0 11 w as '^egal." ^pite the fact that, if, as contended cause, here, he started with a clean slate. Jennings met n o w , t h e layoff were because of his efforts as a steward with the two other electricians, who were working as a t o enforce the starting provisions of the contract, it team installing new metering for each apartment, briefly clearly would have violated article VIII of the contract discussed and agreed to go along with the 7 a.m. starting which provides: "Under no circumstances shall stewards time and, apparently, was "elected" steward by default,. be discriminated against for the faithful performance of Jennings advised Hammersmith of his intent to raise the their duties as such"; that the starting time controversy starting time issue at the next Local Union meeting. That with Foreman Morton of which much was made at the meeting was held on October 2 and Jennings did not hearing was not referred to in his written intraunion demand an 8 a.m. starting time until Friday morning, Oc- charge against Morton; and that his OSHA discrimina- tober 3, when he met with Hammersmith. t io n charge was based on a contention that the layoff Later, during the morning of October 3, Hammersmith was motivated because of his safety complaints at the advised Jennings and the two other electricians that the earlier jobsite. Second, his testimony represents over- job again was to be shut down and that Respondent's statements and exaggerations. In this connection, Jen- personnel manager had been asked to determine if there nings went to great lengths to establish knowledge by were other Respondent jobs to which the three men Foreman Hammersmith of Jennings' safety and contract might be transferred. Jennings complained that Respond- complaints and his difficulties with Foreman Morton at ent was out to get him and that he wanted a layoff t h e fi r s t jobsite, testifying that, after arriving 1 hour late rather than a transfer. Temporary positions were found at the Hampton House job, he bared his prior work his- for the other two, more senior electricians, but none was tory to Hammersmith for 2 hours before commencing available for Jennings who, thereafter, was laid off. On work. This testimony is contradicted not only by Ham- the same day, Respondent laid off 10 other electricians mersmith, but also by coemployee Hicks and seeks, un- from other jobs. successfully, to convince me that a foreman would be so Jennings was aware of the effects of a layoff, as op- interested in the tale as to permit 3 hours of nonproducti- posed to a transfer. In the former case, he would be enti- vity at $15.15 an hour at a job which recently resumed tied to unemployment compensation, but could be re- after a lengthy shutdown over a price dispute with the turned to work only through the Local Union's referral owner. Third, Jennings sought hard to establish that he system. In the latter case, he would continue to work was steward on this 3-day, three-man job and had full within the Local Union's geographical jurisdiction at the knowledge of Respondent's access to materials and its same rate of pay and at the same position and could be ability to continue the job uninterrupted. Of course, on returned to work at Hampton House when the job was the first day of his 3 days on the job, he was 1 hour late, resumed. related his work history to the foreman for 2 hours and The Friday morning decision to temporarily close apparently spent considerable time away from his work down the Hampton House job, as credibly testified to by area visiting the other two electricians to discuss ap- Respondent's officials, followed discussions on Thursday pointment of a steward, telephoning the Local Union morning between Hammersmith and Project Manager office and busying himself with the weekly steward 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD report forms. On the third day, he spent part of his day Respondent was in the process that very day of laying in discussions with Foreman Hammersmith about the off 10 other electricians at other locations. starting time, another part in discussion with Hammers- On the record here, it is impossible to conclude that a mith and Sembinini concerning the prospects of a trans- contractor of this size would jeopardize its contract with fer or a layoff and another part completing a weekly ste- the building owner and its relations with the Local ward report (of which the Local Union has no record), Union which supplies its workmen simply because a ste- leaving the jobsite 1 hour early. His ability to testify as ward voiced complaints over a starting time previously to availability of materials and Respondent's ability to approved at both jobsites by the Local Union itself. The continue the job is wholly unconvincing. complaint must be dismissed. Assuming without deciding that this slender eviden- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of tiary thread satisfies the General Counsel's burden, under law, the transcript as corrected, and the entire record, in- Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB cluding an exceptionally able closing argument by coun- 1083 (1980), of establishing a prima facie case, I neverthe- sel for General Counsel who waived the filing of a post- less find and conclude that Jennings' activities were not trial brief, and, pursuant to Section 10(c), I hereby issue to any degree a motivating factor in Respondent's Octo- the following recommended: ber 3 decision and that the job would have been closed down and Jennings laid off regardless of any protected ORDER' activity on his part. It is ordered that the motion of the counsel for the There is no doubt whatever in my mind that Respond- General Counsel to correct the transcript be, and the ent's operational decisions were motivated solely by busi- same hereby is, granted. ness considerations. The apartment access problems and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and material shortages were real, as were the uncertainties as the same hereby is, dismissed. to the time of their solution. That they came several days after the closure has no bearing on Respondent's motives In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the to close down in the first place. Nor is there doubt as to Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- the bona fides of Respondent's efforts to transfer the ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in three employees to other positions. Here, again, the Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto record clearly portrays that effort, despite the fact that shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD report forms. On the third day, he spent part of his day Respondent was in the process that very day of laying in discussions with Foreman Hammersmith about the off 10 other electricians at other locations. starting time, another part in discussion with Hammers- On the record here, it is impossible to conclude that a mith and Sembinini concerning the prospects of a trans- contractor of this size would jeopardize its contract with fer or a layoff and another part completing a weekly ste- the building owner and its relations with the Local ward report (of which the Local Union has no record), Union which supplies its workmen simply because a ste- leaving the jobsite 1 hour early. His ability to testify as ward voiced complaints over a starting time previously to availability of materials and Respondent's ability to approved at both jobsites by the Local Union itself. The continue the job is wholly unconvincing. complaint must be dismissed. Assuming without deciding that this slender eviden- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of tiary thread satisfies the General Counsel's burden, under law, the transcript as corrected, and the entire record, in- Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB eluding an exceptionally able closing argument by coun- 1083 (1980), of establishing a prima facie case, I neverthe- sel for General Counsel who waived the filing of a post- less find and conclude that Jennings' activities were not trial brief, and, pursuant to Section 10(c), I hereby issue to any degree a motivating factor in Respondent's Octo- the following recommended: ber 3 decision and that the job would have been closed down and Jennings laid off regardless of any protectedORDER activity on his part. It is ordered that the motion of the counsel for the There is no doubt whatever in my mind that Respond- General Counsel to correct the transcript be, and the ent's operational decisions were motivated solely by busi- same hereby is, granted. ness considerations. The apartment access problems and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and material shortages were real, as were the uncertainties as the same hereby is, dismissed. to the time of their solution. That they came several days after the closure has no bearing on Respondent's motives I, the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the to close down in the first place. Nor is there doubt as to Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- the bona fides of Respondent's efforts to transfer the ings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in three employees to other positions. Here, again, the s ec. 10 2.48 o f th e R ul es a nd Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto record clearly portrays that effort, despite the fact that shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD report forms. On the third day, he spent part of his day Respondent was in the process that very day of laying in discussions with Foreman Hammersmith about the off 10 other electricians at other locations. starting time, another part in discussion with Hammers- On the record here, it is impossible to conclude that a mith and Sembinini concerning the prospects of a trans- contractor of this size would jeopardize its contract with fer or a layoff and another part completing a weekly ste- the building owner and its relations with the Local ward report (of which the Local Union has no record), Union which supplies its workmen simply because a ste- leaving the jobsite 1 hour early. His ability to testify as ward voiced complaints over a starting time previously to availability of materials and Respondent's ability to approved at both jobsites by the Local Union itself. The continue the job is wholly unconvincing. complaint must be dismissed. Assuming without deciding that this slender eviden- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of tiary thread satisfies the General Counsel's burden, under law, the transcript as corrected, and the entire record, in- Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB eluding an exceptionally able closing argument by coun- 1083 (1980), of establishing a prima facie case, I neverthe- sel for General Counsel who waived the filing of a post- less find and conclude that Jennings' activities were not trial brief, and, pursuant to Section 10(c), I hereby issue to any degree a motivating factor in Respondent's Octo- the following recommended: ber 3 decision and that the job would have been closed down and Jennings laid off regardless of any protectedORDER activity on his part. It is ordered that the motion of the counsel for the There is no doubt whatever in my mind that Respond- General Counsel to correct the transcript be, and the ent's operational decisions were motivated solely by busi- same hereby is, granted. ness considerations. The apartment access problems and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and material shortages were real, as were the uncertainties as the same hereby is, dismissed. to the time of their solution. That they came several days after the closure has no bearing on Respondent's motives I, the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the to close down in the first place. Nor is there doubt as to Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- the bona fides of Respondent's efforts to transfer the ings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in three employees to other positions. Here, again, the s ec. 10 2.48 o f th e R ul es a nd Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto record clearly portrays that effort, despite the fact that shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD report forms. On the third day, he spent part of his day Respondent was in the process that very day of laying in discussions with Foreman Hammersmith about the off 10 other electricians at other locations. starting time, another part in discussion with Hammers- On the record here, it is impossible to conclude that a mith and Sembinini concerning the prospects of a trans- contractor of this size would jeopardize its contract with fer or a layoff and another part completing a weekly ste- the building owner and its relations with the Local ward report (of which the Local Union has no record), Union which supplies its workmen simply because a ste- leaving the jobsite 1 hour early. His ability to testify as ward voiced complaints over a starting time previously to availability of materials and Respondent's ability to approved at both jobsites by the Local Union itself. The continue the job is wholly unconvincing. complaint must be dismissed. Assuming without deciding that this slender eviden- Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of tiary thread satisfies the General Counsel's burden, under law, the transcript as corrected, and the entire record, in- Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB eluding an exceptionally able closing argument by coun- 1083 (1980), of establishing a prima facie case, I neverthe- sel for General Counsel who waived the filing of a post- less find and conclude that Jennings' activities were not trial brief, and, pursuant to Section 10(c), I hereby issue to any degree a motivating factor in Respondent's Octo- the following recommended: ber 3 decision and that the job would have been closed down and Jennings laid off regardless of any protectedORDER activity on his part. It is ordered that the motion of the counsel for the There is no doubt whatever in my mind that Respond- General Counsel to correct the transcript be, and the ent's operational decisions were motivated solely by busi- same hereby is, granted. ness considerations. The apartment access problems and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and material shortages were real, as were the uncertainties as the same hereby is, dismissed. to the time of their solution. That they came several days after the closure has no bearing on Respondent's motives I, the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the to close down in the first place. Nor is there doubt as to Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- the bona fides of Respondent's efforts to transfer the ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in three employees to other positions. Here, again, the s ec. 10 2.48 o f th e R ul es a nd Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto record clearly portrays that effort, despite the fact that shall be deemed waived for all purposes.