Interior Alterations, Inc.

INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. INC. Interior Alterations, Inc. and Rodger Stark. Case 27-CA-6936 September 30, 1982 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER On June 15, 1982, Administrative Law Judge William J. Pannier III issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, 2 and conclusions3 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Interior Alter- ations, Inc., Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. ' Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby denied as the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Product Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that Stark and Brookman were engaging in protected concerted activity when they pro- tested Respondent's use of laborers to move doors to storage, we find it unnecessary to rely specifically on Corry Jamestown Corporation, 238 NLRB 320 (1978). and Clayton Construction Corporation, 250 NLRB 798 (1980). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM J. PANNIER III, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard by me in Denver, Colorado, on February I 11 and 12, 1982. On October 12, 1980,1 the Re- gional Director for Region 27 of the National Labor Re- lations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing, based upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on Sep- tember 29, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) Unless stated otherwise, all dates occurred in 1980 264 NLRB No. 93 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., herein called the Act. All parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear, to intro- duce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Based upon the entire record, upon the briefs filed on behalf of the parties, and upon my obser- vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all times material, Interior Alterations, Inc., herein called Respondent, has maintained an office in Denver, Colorado, and has been engaged in the building and con- struction of commercial interiors. In the course and con- duct of these business operations, Respondent annually purchases and receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Colorado. Therefore, I find that at all times material Respondent has been an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED At all times material, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, herein called the Union, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Configuration and Issues Respondent is a general contracting firm specializing in demolition and remodeling of high rise office buildings and, additionally, in remodeling and doing tenant finish work on commercial properties. The Union has been the collective-bargaining representative of, in essence, car- pentry employees employed by Respondent. Between, al least, May 8, 1978, and April 30, 1981, Respondent and the Union had been parties to a collective-bargaining agreement providing that carpenters covered by it would perform, inter alia, "[t]he unloading, handling, stockpil- ing and erection of all fabricated materials, such as . . doors and millwork of all kinds . . .2 and "that any work that is covered by this Agreement shall not be as- signed to any employee who is not covered by this Agreement."3 The agreement did not provide a proce- dure for resolving disputes arising under it between the parties. Rather, it stated only that the business repre- 2 Business Representative Leslie Prickeit testified that, under that con- tract provision, where a building was being renovated and doors were removed to be resold or reused, the work of "stock[ling] them or put[ting] them in storage or whatever the case is, providing they're going to be used again" would be carpenters' work, but that if the doors were "going to, shall we say, the dump, or I think the word was used, garbage, in other words, material that cannot be reused again, we refer to it as trash, we do not claim that .... " 3 These provisions provided the genesis of the dispute that arose on September 25, during which conduct occurred that is alleged to have been unlawful 677 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentative, at his own discretion, might appoint a steward "whose duties will be to see that the contract is adhered to by the Employer" and who, "[s]hould complications arise . . shall consult with the Business Representa- tive."4 In the spring, 11 floors of the Security Life Building, an older structure in Denver, had been vacated. At the invitation of that building's management, Respondent had begun submitting bids for renovation of separate areas on those 11 floors as each area had been let to a new tenant. In the end, Respondent succeeded as the bidder for 29 of those separate areas and by summer, work was in progress in some of them. In August, Thom Guggenheim had been hired and had commenced work as the field superintendent in charge of those projects.6 By September, both Rodger Stark and Richard Brook- man, journeymen carpenters, 6 also were working on the projects at that building under Guggenheim's supervi- sion. This relationship, however, developed into an un- happy one and on September 25, Guggenheim fired both carpenters. The General Counsel alleges, contrary to Respondent, that these terminations had been motivated by unlawful considerations and, accordingly, constituted violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Moreover, it is also alleged that Section 8(a)(1) of the Act had been violated on that same date by Guggenheim's asserted threats of discipline and/or discharge of employees for objecting to others doing their work and/or because employees sought to enforce the collective-bargaining agreement, and, in addition, when Guggenheim purportedly told em- ployees that Anthony P. Cardone, Respondent's presi- dent and major shareholder, 7 would fire whomever did not get along with Respondent, a reference to employees engaging in union and other protected concerted activi- ty. Respondent denies these allegations as well. B. The Events of September 24 and 25 Business Representative Prickett testified that a not un- common problem is one involving employees in other crafts performing work which, under contractual terms like and similar to those quoted in section III,A, supra, employers are obliged to assign to employees represented by the Union. In this regard, Respondent's operations at the Security Life Building were no different. Thus, Stark, Brookman, and journeyman finish carpenter James 4 Prickett testified that where a steward had not been appointed for a particular project on which a dispute arose, "normally the first procedure would be [for the aggrieved employee] to go to his foreman, if there is a foreman on the job, if there isn't, possibly check with the superintendent. If he gets no satisfaction, then I say as a last resort, call me, but first try with the company." I It is admitted that at all times material, Guggenheim had been a su- pervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act and an agent of Re- sponden:. 6 Prior to commencing work on the Security Life Building projects, Stark had been working steadily for Respondent since approximately September 1979, and Brookman had been working for Respondent for about 4 months, since approximately May or June. Thus, both men had worked for Respondent on other projects before having been transferred to the ones at the Security Life Building. 7 It is admitted that at all times material Cardone had been a supervi- sor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act and an agent of Respond- ent. Wallace each testified that, during the time that he had worked on those projects, laborers regularly had per- formed duties encompassed by carpenters' work jurisdic- tion, specifically by moving doors and other materials. Moreover, Stark testified that, prior to his termination, he had complained to his superiors about laborers doing work that belonged to carpenters. Not only was Stark's testimony in this respect not contradicted, but Albert Cappella, Respondent's project manager, 8 agreed that there had been an occasion, during the course of the Se- curity Life Building projects, when Stark had com- plained about laborers being used to unload doors from a truck that had been delivering them to that project. In response to Stark's complaint, Cappella testified that he had not explained to Stark the reason for utilizing labor- ers to perform that work, since "I really didn't think it made a bit of difference for him to know." Not only had these complaints been made to Respond- ent's officials, but complaints also had been voiced to Business Representative Prickett. He testified that, prior to Stark's and Brookman's terminations, he had gone to the projects and had requested that Respondent cease permitting laborers to handle and to stockpile new doors. 9 In addition to making comments to their superiors and to Prickett, Respondent's carpenters had discussed among themselves their dissatisfaction with their work being performed by laborers. On September 24, Brook- man, Wallace, and Jim Oldendorf, the fourth carpenter working for Respondent on the Security Life Building projects, decided to select one of their number to serve 8 In its answer, Respondent denied the allegation in the complaint that Cappella had been, at all times material, project manager and a statutory supervisor and agent of Respondent. Cappella testified that he had been the estimator for the Security Life Building projects. However, when he testified, Cardone identified Cappella as "the project manager at the time" of the discharges of Stark and Brookman and, further, testified that "Al, to me, was intermediary in our nlanagement structure." In view of these admissions, I find, contrary to Respondent's answer, that at all of times material, Cappella had been, at least, an agent of Respondent within the meaning of Sec 2(2) and (13) of the Act. 9 During cross-examination, Prickett testified that he had gone to the site and had complained about the problem to Keith Seivert. Seivert had not been appointed foreman until after the discharges of Stark and Brookman. Thus, at that point in Prickett's testimony, it possibly could have been concluded that he never had complained about laborers doing carpenters' work until after the September 25 terminations. However, during redirect examination Prickett clarified the ambiguity, testifying that he had gone to the projects to complain about the problem on two or three occasions, that these visits had occurred both before and after those terminations, and that when he had gone to the site prior to Sep- tember 25, he had spoken about the matter with the job superntendent. Accordingly, I find that Prickett had complained to Respondent about laborers doing work claimed by carpenters prior to the discharges of Stark and Brookman. 678 INTERIOR ALTERATIONS, INC. as steward.' Wallace was chosen." Stark had not been present at the time that the other carpenters had selected Wallace steward. So Brookman had looked for Stark to ascertain if the latter had any objections. It is undisputed that when Brookman had located Stark, Guggenheim and laborers' Foreman Charlie Trainer also had been in the area, within hearing distance. It is also uncontrovert- ed that, after Stark had said that he had no objection to the selection of Wallace as steward, Trainer had asked "why [the carpenters] needed a steward and [Brookman had] told him that [Brookman] was tired of the crap that was going on down there." On the following morning, after work had com- menced, Stark and Brookman had encountered Trainer and another laborer, named Ernie, at the 23d floor eleva- tor where a stack of doors on a cart also was located. Asked what they were doing with the doors, Ernie had replied that they were being taken to storage. Brookman asserted that laborers could not do that type of work be- cause it was carpenters' work. Stark confirmed that as- sertion. Brookman directed the laborers to "go tell Gug- genheim that I told you that if you're taking these doors to storage, that's carpenter work and you guys are not supposed to be doing it." Stark and Brookman then left the area and went to work. There then followed two series' of conversations that led to their discharges. The first of these pertained to a series of conversations in which Guggenheim participated with Stark and Brookman that morning. After the laborers had reported what had occurred to Guggenheim, he had spoken to both Stark and Brookman prior to the 10 a.m. coffee- break.' 2 While there were differences in certain aspects of the descriptions concerning what had been said before the break, there was agreement on the essential words that had been spoken. Thus, Guggenheim had asked why Stark and Brookman had stopped the laborers from working. The latter had said that the laborers were not supposed to be doing carpenters' work. Guggenheim claimed that the doors were garbage and, accordingly, that their transportation off the floor was not embraced within the carpenters' contractual jurisdiction. Brook- man, at least, pointed out that the laborers, themselves, had said that they were transporting the doors to stor- 10 Although Wallace testified initially that this had occurred on Sep- tember 25, he later acknowledged that he did not "really remember" whether it had been that day or the day before when the steward had been selected. He agreed that "[ilt could have been the day before that we took this action." Brookman and Stark each testified that September 24 had been the date on which the employees had selected a steward. Both appeared to recall clearly that September 24 had been the correct date, which is not surprising since they had been terminated on the fol- lowing day and, consequently, had a proximate date of significance with which to relate the date on which a steward had been selected. Therfore, I conclude that the selection of the steward had been made on September 24. i" In point of fact, though the carpenters had not been aware of it at the time of selecting Wallace as steward, employees were not allowed to select their own steward, because, as pointed out in sec. III,A, supra, au- thority to make such decisions rested with the Union's business repre- sentative. 1" There is some confusion as to whether Guggenheim had spoken with Stark and Brookman separately or together. Thus, Guggenheim and Stark both described a conversation involving all three of them prior to the break. But, Brookman described a conversation during which only he and Guggenheim had been present. age, which, as set forth above, is work claimed by the Union under its collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. Guggenheim said that Stark and Brookman had no authority to stop the laborers from working. The two discriminatees, while not disputing that general as- sertion, claimed that they did possess the right to prevent laborers from doing carpenters' work. During the 10 a.m. coffeebreak Guggenheim again had raised the issue with the carpenters. Guggenheim testi- fied that he had "asked to two gentlemen if they would stop . . . obstructing the job, stop telling other people what to do, stop complaining, I guess, as I stated."' s When, testified Guggenheim, the two carpenters had re- plied that "[t]hey would not cease; they would not stop complaining,"'4 he had said that if they did not "like the way this company is run-if there's anyone here- dammit, tell me now and I'll get the checks." Guggen- heim recalled no more of this conversation. Stark and Brookman denied that Guggenheim had said anything that morning about holding up the job by stopping the laborers from production or from doing work. However, in all other significant respects, they, as well as Wallace, confirmed Guggenheim's account of his remarks during the coffeebreak confrontation. It is undisputed that Guggenheim again had spoken with Stark and Brookman, this time separately, either as the coffeebreak had been concluding or immediately thereafter. Thus, Guggenheim testified, "I approached them both individually and said, 'Are you going to stop this?' And basically the response was, and has been through the whole hearing, that that was carpenters' work." ' 5 The series of conversations conducted by Guggenheim with Stark and Brookman culminated with termination conversations in which Guggenheim told them that they were being terminated for lack of production. Guggen- heim testified: I gave them their checks. I said, "One more time"-in other words, I was not completely com- I" During cross-examination, after Guggenheim agreed that he later had told Stark and Brookman that he would give them one more chance if they "would not complain" and that "they said they would complain," Guggenheim suddenly injected: We have really used the word "complain" a little too much. It might have been mentioned once the entire morning. It was not complain per se. It was stop the work, stop the laborers from doing their work. They continued to stop the laborers from doing their work. In fact, that is precisely what was said, not complain. " Gugenhiem claimed, that the two gentlemen in question here complained about our oper- ation daily, almost hourly; and that definitely has an effect on their work and the amount of production they do. I mean, how can you possibly work for somebody you don't like, put out even 75 percent of your capability. And I just heard complaints day in and day out .... But the complaints. Aside from lack of production, the com- plaints about how the operation was just got to be a little too much. It was affecting my job at that point, and that's wrong. Yet, during the course of his effort to nullify what Guggenheim per- ceived as the adverse effect of use of the word "complain," quoted in fn. 13, supra, Guggenheim also testified: "I mean, everybody complains all day long. I complain." i' Guggenheim continued on to testify: "At that point I think I made another phone call to the office and we determined-Mr. Cordone [sic] determined to write the checks." 679 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mitted to firing these people until I did hand them the check-"are we going to continue with this crap?" And the response was, "Laborers are not going to do carpenters' work," and I said, "That's it." And they were in separate places at that time. I gave Brookman his check; nothing was said, to my knowledge. Mr. Stark and I had a short conversa- tion, basically, about the same stuff. I gave hi his check. During the time that he appeared as an adverse wit- ness called by the General Counsel, Guggenheim testi- fied that his reasons for having recommended that Stark and Brookman be terminated on September 25 had been "[s]topping work that particular day and stopping labor- ers from doing their job that particular day, that, in effect, caused the discharge." Moreover, Guggenheim conceded that "[t]hey would have gone on working that day" had those events not occurred. This testimony leads to consideration of the second series of conversations that had occurred that morning: those between Guggen- heim and higher management. Guggenheim claimed that he did not recall clearly the sequence of events that had occurred that morning with respect to this series of con- versations. He testified that after the laborers had report- ed the incident at the elevator and after his own initial conversation with Stark and Brookman, before the cof- feebreak, he had telephoned Respondent's office. How- ever, he was uncertain whether he had spoken with Cap- pella or Cardone at that time: "I believe Cardone first, but I don't recall. It might have been Cappella."' 6 With regard to the substance of this first telephone call, Gug- genheim testified that he had reported that, "'They've stopped the laborers from working and I've pretty much had it. I'm just tired of this daily.' The work was just going too slow, and for reasons I've already stated. And he asked me, 'What do you want to do?' I said, 'I want to get rid of them.' He said, 'Get rid of them. I'll get their checks."' Notwithstanding the finality of the words purportedly spoken in that first conversation, according to Guggenheim's description, Guggenheim testified that following the coffeebreak confrontation, "I think I made another phone call to the office and we determined-Mr. Cardone determined to write the checks." As noted in footnote 16, supra, Cappella did not claim to have spoken to either Guggenheim or Cardone on September 25 concerning Stark and Brookman. Cardone testified that he had been the official that had made the decision to terminate Stark and Brookman. He claimed that there had been longstanding problems with Stark's performance and that the events of September 25 had been "just a straw that broke the camel's back. It was the last time that we were going to put up with any of his antics or his insubordination or his refusal to take orders." More specifically, Cardone testified that his rea- l6 Cardone equivocated similarly: "I am not exactly sure whether the first inquiry came from Mr. Guggenheim or from Al Cappella, who was the project manager at the time." Significantly, although Respondent called Cappella as its witness, he never claimed to have been involved in any of the conversations pertaining to Stark and Brookman on September 25. sons for terminating Stark had been "[i]nsubordination, refusal to take direction from my properly appointed su- perintendents and for disrupting the orderly procedure of the jobs that we were working on." While Brookman had been involved in the incidents of September 25, Car- done did not claim that his relatively brief work history had been marred to the degree of the asserted difficulties encountered by Respondent with Stark. With respect to the sequence of events on September 25, Cardone testified that either Guggenheim or Cappella had telephoned and had reported that Stark and Brook- man "were not taking orders on the job, they were cre- ating a controversy on the job, that they were stopping work on the job, and what was the superintendent to do about it?" Cardone claimed that he had asked "what the difficulty was," and "specifically if it were [sic] a union problem, and I was told no." According to Cardone, he had explained to the caller that if it was a union problem, he wanted to summon the business agent to the job and to go there himself to discuss it "because I don't allow my supervisors to negotiate at that level." '7 Following the response to this question, testified Cardone, he had been told, apparently again, that "these men were not working, that they were wandering around the building, and that they were giving orders to laborers, and that he had no control over them. I asked them to try and re- solve it and call me back." Thereafter, according to Car- done: It was a little while later that Thom called me back and said, "Tony, these guys are just doing as they damn well please and I've had it. Either you want to transfer them to another job or tell me what to do," and I said to terminate their employment. I instructed them to pay them for the full day and asked [sic] them to leave the job. I also instruct- ed them that if there were any problems concerning the termination, as there sometimes is, to request that the business agent be brought to the job and advise me if he would be there and I would go down. Analysis and Conclusions The principal allegation in this matter is that the termi- nations of Stark and Brookman had been discriminatorily motivated. "In assessing allegations that conduct directed against employees had been unlawfully motivated, the crucial inquiry must be directed to the state of mind of the official who had made the decision to effectuate the conduct." Advanced Installations. Inc., 257 NLRB 845, 854 (1981); see also American Petrofina Company of Texas, 247 NLRB 183, 189 (1980), and cases cited there- in. While much evidence was presented in this proceed- ing concerning the assertedly unsatisfactory work per- formance of Brookman and, particularly, Stark through- out their employment with Respondent, the record is 17 During cross-examination, Cardone testified: "What I did say was that I requested from my people that if it was a matter of a union dispute or jurisdictional dispute, to get the business agent down there and let me know if he would be there and I would be down to help solve it." (Em- phasis supplied.) 680 INTERIOR ALTERATIONS, INC. clear that their terminations had been precipitated by events occurring during the morning of September 25 and, concomitantly, that had those events not occurred, the two carpenters would not have been discharged that day. Thus, no evidence was presented to show that Re- spondent had planned to terminate them prior to what had taken place that morning. Further, as pointed out in section III,B, supra, Guggenheim admitted that had the events of that morning not occurred, Stark and Brook- man "would have gone on working that day." Similarly, Cardone testified that the events of September 25 had represented "just a straw that broke the camel's back." Consequently, it is to the events of that morning that analysis must be directed. It is undisputed that, upon being told by laborer Ernie that he and laborer Foreman Trainer were taking the cartload of doors to storage, Stark and, more particular- ly, Brookman had told the two laborers that they should not be doing that type of work, because it fell within carpenters' jurisdiction, and had directed the two labor- ers to report as much to Guggenheim. In having made these assertions, Stark and Brookman had been relying upon the terms of the Union's then-existing colective-bar- gaining agreement with Respondent which, as set forth in section III,A, supra, provided that the handling and stockpiling of prefabricated materials, including doors, was work falling within the jurisdiction of employees represented by the Union and, further, that such "work . . .shall not be assigned to any employee who is not covered by this Agreement," which laborers concededly were not. Thus, by making the statements that they had made to the laborers on September 25, Stark and Brook- man had been attempting to enforce the collective-bar- gaining agreement by asserting their belief that laborers were prohibited from transporting the cartload of doors to storage. As a general proposition, the Act protects employees who seek to implement a collective-bargaining agreement by protesting employer refusals to honor its terms and conditions. See, e.g., B & M Excavating, Inc., 155 NLRB 1152, 1154 (1965), enfd. per curiam, 368 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1966); R. W. Little, Inc., 201 NLRB 454, 459-460 (1973), enfd. 493 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1974). More specifi- cally, employees are protected by the Act when they engage in the activity of protesting their employer's fail- ure to assign work as required by its collective-bargain- ing agreement with their bargaining representative. See, e.g., Corry Jamestown Corporation, 238 NLRB 320 (1978); Clayton Construction Corporation, 250 NLRB 798 (1980). Apparently these propositions are not disputed by Re- spondent. However, it argues, in essence, that Stark and Brookman's activity on September 25 had been of a nature to remove them from the protection of the Act because the work of moving the cartload of doors to storage had not been carpenters' work, in fact; the two carpenters had approached the laborers directly on Sep- tember 25, rather than contacting the Union to voice their protest; and Stark and Brookman had waived any claim to the work since they had not always complained in the past when it had been performed by laborers and, indeed, had asked previously for laborers' assistance to perform work embraced within the Union's contractual jurisdiction. None of these arguments has merit. Considerable testimony was adduced pertaining to the nature of the work being done by the laborers on Sep- tember 25. Yet, "the Board need not find the complaints to be meritorious in order to hold the activity protected, but the fact that the complaints were apparently reason- able does support the conclusion that they were made for legitimate union purposes and were not fabricated for personal motives." N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967). Accord: Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 414 F.2d 1345, 1351, fn. 12 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 935 (1970). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated in N.L.R.B. v. H. C. Smith Construction Co., 439 F.2d 1064 (1971): The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the employee's asserted interpretation of the contract is relevant to the factual issues of the employee's good faith and the employer's motivation. We agree with the General Counsel, however, that the employee does not lose the protection of the Act as a matter of law simply because his understanding of the con- tract turns out to be mistaken. Here, there is no showing that Stark and Brookman had acted in bad faith or for purely personal reasons. The la- borers had said that they were taking the doors to stor- age. As noted in section Ill,A, supra, Prickett testified that such work is encompassed within the work jurisdic- tion of employees represented by the Union. No evi- dence was adduced that would show that either Stark or Brookman had some ulterior purpose, extraneous to the collective-bargaining process, for having raised the matter. Consequently, whether or not their claim to the work of moving doors to storage on September 25 had been a correct one is not relevant in the circumstances of this case. There may be situations to which Respondent's argu- ment that Stark and Brookman had lost the Act's protec- tion by approaching the laborers directly, rather than by contacting the Union initially, may apply. This case does not provide one of them. The then-existing agreement between Respondent and the Union did not contain a grievance and arbitration procedure. Although it had provided for appointment of a steward, that had been a discretionary matter and none had been appointed by September 25. Thus, there had been no steward who could "consult with the Business Representative" about the dispute over moving the doors on that date. r Prick- ett testified that in such circumstances, the usual practice is for employees first to attempt to work out the problem with the job foreman or superintendent and, only after that had proven unsatisfactory, to then contact the Union concerning the complaint. Consequently, the fact that Stark and Brookman had not first contacted the '8 As pointed out above, Wallace's selection as steward by Respond- ent's carpenters had not been sanctioned by the Union and, accordingly. he could not have "consullted] with the Business Representative" in that capacity on September 25. 681 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union on September 25 did not operate to deprive their activity of protection in the circumstances of Respond- ent's contractual relationship with the Union. Of course, on September 25, Stark and Brookman had not approached Guggenheim concerning their complaint about transporting the cartload of doors to storage. Yet, their encounter with the laborers that day appears to have been a circumstantial and unpremeditated one. There is no evidence that they had known previously that the laborers would be transporting doors to storage that morning. Nor is there evidence that Stark and Brookman had been waiting for the laborers to attempt to do so. So far as the record discloses, the encounter at the elevator had been purely a chance occurrence, the reaction to which Stark and Brookman had not had a prior opportunity to consider. Consequently, assuming arguendo that the two carpenters had acted improperly in telling the laborers that they should not be doing that work and in directing them to report as much to Gug- genheim, it cannot be said that their impropriety had been any more than a spontaneous reaction of concern, about invasion of their contractual work jurisdiction, to an unanticipated encounter, which led them to believe that contractual work was being assigned to nonunit em- ployees. As the Board observed recently in J. W. Micro- electronics Corporation, 259 NLRB 327 (1981): It is well settled, however, that not every impro- priety committed in the course of Section 7 activity deprives the offending employee of the protection of the Act. A line must be drawn between situations where employees exceed the bounds of lawful con- duct in a moment of exuberance or in a manner not activated by improper motives and those flagrant cases in which the misconduct is violent or of such serious character as to render the employees unfit for further service. Here, based upon the undisputed accounts of what had occurred, it cannot be said that Stark and Brookman's encounter with the two laborers on September 25 had been so "violent or of such serious character as to render [them] unfit for further service." Nor can it truly be said that Stark's and Brookman's undisputed remarks to Ernie and Trainer on September 25 had constituted an impropriety. It is undisputed that prior to that date there had been complaints voiced to Respondent, both by employee-carpenters and by Busi- ness Representative Prickett, about laborers doing work encompassed within the carpenters' jurisdiction under the terms of the then-existing collective-bargaining agree- ment. Yet, the practice admittedly had continued. The work which the two laborers had been performing on September 25 appears to have been relatively short term in duration. Thus, had Stark and Brookman stopped per- forming their own work that morning to complain di- rectly to Guggenheim or to contact the Union to do so, the transportation of the doors to storage likely would have been accomplished before any resolution of the merit of the carpenters' protest could have been reached and, had Stark and Brookman been correct about that work falling within carpenters' jurisdiction, before the contractual violation could have been remedied. Further- more, in the final analysis, Stark and Brookman really never did prevent the laborers from transporting the doors to storage on September 25. True, the former had said that the latter could not do that type of work and that they should relate that asserted fact to Guggenheim. But, it is uncontroverted that Stark and Brookman then had left the area. There is no evidence that they had waited to prevent Ernie and Trainer from doing the work. Nor is there evidence that they had waited to be certain that the laborers would go to Guggenheim to relate what had been said. There has been no showing that the delay occasioned that morning by the laborers reporting to Guggenheim what had been said to them by Stark and Brookman had been significant in duration. Most importantly, had Stark and Brookman been accurate in claiming that transport- ing doors to storage was carpenters' work and had Gug- genheim agreed that their assertion in that regard was correct, a breach of the collective-bargaining agreement could have been prevented. True, the contractual viola- tion might not have been a major one. Yet, as is true of unfair labor practices that are not major, "even a . . . small-scale violation of [a collective-bargaining agree- ment] is entitled to . . . attention." St. Regis Paper Com- pany, 192 NLRB 661, 662 (1971). In short, any minor delay that Respondent had suffered in work progress that day, by virtue of Stark and Brookman's protest, is offset by what has not been shown to have been other than a good-faith effort to implement the terms of the then-existing collective-bargaining agreement. Such a goal has the ultimate effect of promoting the overall suc- cess of the collective-bargaining process between Re- spondent and the Union. In sum, while it might be said that, in telling the labor- ers that they could not move doors to storage and in di- recting them to tell as much to Guggenheim, Stark and Brookman had not chosen to pursue the best or wisest course, they had been engaging in protected activity- protesting the assignment of contractual unit work to nonunit employees-and the fact that they may have acted unwisely or in less than an ideal fashion does not serve to deprive them of that protection. See Hagopian & Sons, Inc. v. V.L.R.B., 395 F.2d 947, 951, fn. 2 (6th Cir. 1968). As noted in section III,B, supra, Cappella conced- ed that when he had been approached by Stark protest- ing the use of laborers to unload doors being delivered to the Security Life Building projects, work that admit- tedly belonged to employees represented by the Union, he (Cappella) simply had ignored Stark's protest. There is no basis in the record for Stark to have concluded on September 25 that a similar protest, concerning laborers transporting doors to storage, would have been greeted by any different response from Respondent. Further, Prickett already had been to the site to protest assign- ment of carpenters' work to laborers without, viewing the matter from Stark and Brookman's perspective on September 25, any perceptible change in Respondent's method of work assignment to laborers. Consequently, the mere fact that Stark and Brookman had not contact- ed the Union on the morning of September 25 does not 682 INTERIOR ALTERATIONS, INC. serve to deprive their protest of the Act's protection for "[e]mployees' actions in support of a union do not lose their protected nature merely because the union or other employees are not consulted." Neptune Waterbeds, Inc., 249 NLRB 1122, fn. 2 (1980). With regard to Respondent's final assertion, that Stark and Brookman had waived their right to claim work such as the laborers had been performing on September 25, it must be kept in focus that "waiver presupposes knowledge of all material facts of one's rights, together with a willingness to refrain from enforcing those rights .... " Larkins v. N.L.R.B., 596 F.2d 240, 247 (7th Cir. 1979). Here, the collective-bargaining agreement was be- tween Respondent and the Union-not between Re- spondent and individual employees. Thus, whatever par- ticular employees may or may not have done on particu- lar occasions can hardly serve to establish a waiver by the Union where it has not been shown that the latter had been aware of what had been occurring. It is undis- puted that whenever protests about assignment of car- penters' work to other craft employees had been made to Prickett, he, in turn, had protested to Respondent about it. Moreover, the employees themselves had protested such assignments directly to Respondent's officials. Thus, though Stark and Brookman had not protested on every occasion when such assignments had occurred and even had accepted assistance from noncarpenters in perform- ing work, there is no basis for concluding that the repre- sentative of Respondent's carpenters, the Union, had dis- played "a willingness to refrain from enforcing [the work jurisdiction] rights," Id., in its collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. Having concluded that Stark's and Brookman's protest to the laborers on September 25 had been protected ac- tivity, there then arises the issue of whether or not it had been that activity that had led Respondent to terminate them. As observed above in making that determination, inquiry must focus on the state of mind of the official who had made the decision to terminate them. As set forth in section III,B, supra, Cardone testified that he had been that official and that he had made his decision based upon reports made by Cappella and Guggenheim to the effect that Stark and Brookman purportedly had been refusing to take orders, creating controversy, stop- ping work on the job, wandering around the building, and giving orders to laborers. Guggenheim, the superin- tendent at the Security Life Building projects, testified that he had recommended to Cardone that Stark and Brookman be terminated because, as set forth in section III,B, supra, the two carpenters had been stopping work and stopping laborers from doing their jobs on Septem- ber 25. However, "[t]he Board is not compelled to accept the employer's statement where there is reason- able cause for believing that the ground put forward by the employer was not the true one, and that the real reason was the employer's dissatisfaction with the em- ployee's union activity." N.L.R.B. v. Buddy Schoellkopf Products, Inc., 410 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir. 1969). Here, a preponderance of the evidence warrants the conclusion that Cardone and Guggenheim were attempting "to sub- stitute 'good' reason for 'real' reasons .... " Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 414 F.2d 1345, 1347 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 935, in an effort to con- ceal the fact that their termination motivation had been the carpenters', particularly Starks's, continued complain- ing about laborers being assigned to perform work en- compassed by the carpenters' contractual jurisdiction. The General Counsel has established a relatively strong prima facie case. Stark and Brookman had been terminated on September 25 almost immediately after having complained about Trainer and Ernie transporting the doors. The problem of laborers performing carpen- ters' work had not arisen as a novel one on September 25. Rather, as discussed above, it had been a recurring one for Respondent. It is undisputed that Stark had com- plained in the past to Respondent's officials about its oc- currence. So significant had it become at the Security Life Building projects that carpenters had complained to the Union about it and Prickett had come to the site to protest its continuation to the job superintendent. Fur- ther, it is not controverted that on September 24, Gug- genheim had overheard Brookman saying that the em- ployees had selected a steward due to dissatisfaction with "the crap that was going on down there." Whatever items Brookman may have intended to encompass by that characterization, the only problem of which Re- spondent's officials admitted being aware at that time was the complaining about assignments of carpenters' work to laborers. Accordingly, Guggenheim fairly could infer that the carpenters were becoming more militant about the work assignment problem and had selected a steward to aid in eliminating it. That Respondent hardly could be characterized as having been sympathetic to these complaints about work assignments is shown by the fact that it had continued to assign disputed work to laborers, without attempting to resolve the problem first, even though Prickett had vis- ited the site once prior to September 25. Only after a foreman had been appointed on the projects, following Stark's and Brookman's discharge, and only after Prick- ett had visited the site to speak with that foreman about the problem did it cease. Respondent's disdain toward carpenters' complaints about it was illustrated by Cap- pella who, as set forth in section III,B, supra, when con- fronted by Stark's protest that laborers had been assigned concededly carpenters' work of unloading doors from a delivery truck, simply had refused to answer Stark be- cause Cappella felt that he "really didn't think it made a bit of difference for [Stark] to know." Indeed, for all the hyperbole used by Cardone and Guggenheim to complain about the misconduct of Stark and Brookman, Guggenheim's own account of what he had said to the two carpenters on September 25, particu- larly when taken in conjunction with the uncontroverted descriptions of the confrontation earlier that day at the elevator, demonstrates that it had been their complaints about laborers doing carpenters' work that had led to their terminations. Thus, Guggenheim conceded that at the coffeebreak he had admonished them for their com- plaining and had threatened to get their checks when they had said, according to Guggenheim, that "they 683 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would not cease complaining."' 9 In describing what he had said to them at that time, Guggenheim made no mention of having listed any other types of purported misconduct. Similarly, Guggenheim's own description of his separate meetings with them, at the end of or imme- diately after the coffeebreak shows that he had aban- doned further efforts to reason with them only because they had continued to assert "that that was carpenters' work" and not for any other reason. The identical ex- change, involving only concern by Guggenheim with Stark's and Brookman's complaints about carpenters' work being assigned to other craft's employees, also oc- curred when the checks were distributed: "And the re- sponses was, 'Laborers are not going to do carpenters' work,' and I said 'That's it."' Consequently, Guggen- heim's own descriptions of his September 25 conversa- tions constituted a confession that it had been only Stark's and Brookman's refusal to abandon their protect- ed activity of protesting assignments of carpenters' con- tractual work to laborers that had caused their termina- tions. That type of confession eliminates all doubt as to the reasons for Stark's and Brookman's discharge. Ad- vanced Installations. supra, 257 NLRB 845, 848, and cases cited therein. Moreover, such remarks to employees- threatening discharge if they do not abandon protected activity-violate Section 8(aX)) of the Act. In sum, over the course of the Security Life Building projects, there had been employee complaints about as- signment to laborers of carpenters' contractual work. Re- spondent's project manager felt that assignments should not make "a bit of difference" to the carpenters, Re- spondent had continued its assignment practice without regard to the protests from its carpenters and their bar- gaining representative, Guggenheim had been aware on September 24 that the carpenters had selected a steward to remedy "the crap that was going on down there," and Stark and Brookman had admonished two laborers on September 25 for moving doors in contravention of the contractual work jurisdiction provisions. Accordingly, from Respondent's standpoint that day, there had been a progressively accelerating militancy among its carpenters concerning the work assignments and when Stark and Brookman had refused Guggenheim's demand that they cease complaining about work assignments, they had been discharged. Guggenheim and Cardone denied that union activities had influenced the recommendation and decision, respec- tively, to terminate Stark and Brookman. However, when they testified, these two management officials ap- peared not to be doing so candidly. Rather, they seemed to be making an effort to construct their testimony to suply evidence of a lawful motive for the discharges and, further, to avoid any implication that union activities had influenced them. Most illustrative of the latter point was Cardon's asser- tion that, during one of his telephone conversations on September 25, he had asked specifically whether the dis- 19 As discussed infra, Guggenheim's sudden abandonment of the term "complain," described in fn. 13, supra, appeared to have been motivated more by his awakening to the fact that its use might be injuring Respond- ent's position than by any actual concern with the preciseness of its use to describe what had occurred at the Security Life Building projects. pute was a union or jurisdictional one and had been told that it was not. Yet, that is exactly what had initiated the confrontation at the elevator that morning. Moreover, based upon Guggenheim's own description of the words exchanged when he first had approached Stark and Brookman about the laborers' report that morning Gug- genheim had appreciated that it was a jurisdictional dis- pute-whether certain work was supposed to be allo- cated only to employees represented by the Union. Surely Guggenheim had no reason to lie to Cardone about the origin of the dispute. It is certainly not likely that a supervisor would lie to the owner of a company concerning a matter about which the owner likely ulti- mately would acquire knowledge, given the fact that em- ployees represented by a labor organization were going to be terminated as a result of that supervisor's report to the owner. In these circumstances, the only possible reason for Cardone to have testified that he had been told that the problem did not involve a union or jurisdic- tional dispute was that Cardone was attemtping to remove any possible basis for a conclusion that Stark's and Brookman's protected activity had influenced his de- cision to discharge them. Thus, he fabricated a verbal ex- change in which lower management purportedly had denied, in essence, that any protected activity had been occurring that day, thereby attempting to create the im- pression that he could not have acted on the basis of matters concerning which he had no knowledge. Similarly, in an apparent effort to buttress Respond- ent's case, Cardone testified that Stark had been a singu- larly unsatisfactory employee over a prolonged period prior to his discharge. But, such a contention poses the obvious question of why Respondent had not terminated Stark much sooner if he had been so deficient in his work performance. Cardone answered by claiming that Respondent had tolerated Stark's shortcomings because there had been "a dire need for carpenters" with the result that "[ilt was my decision that half a man doing a job was better than no one when I needed them so badly at the time, and for that reason, he was not terminated immediately." Cardone did not explain how, in an era of high unemployment in the construction industry, he had ascertained that a replacement carpenter could not be se- cured. He did not describe having made any efforts to obtain a replacement for Stark prior to September 25. Indeed, while Cardone at one point agreed that there still had been "a dire need for carpenters" at the time of Stark's discharge, Respondent made no showing that it had encountered any difficulty locating replacements for Stark and Brookman following their terminations. That is not surprising inasmuch as the Union's records show that the number of journeyman carpenters on its work list had been 257 in July, 200 in August, and 243 in Septem- ber. Consequently, not only is the record devoid of any explanation by Cardone regarding how he had reached the conclusion that there had been "a dire need" for car- penters, but it does not support the assertion that re- placement carpenters were not available. Cardone advanced a litany of acts of misconduct by Stark and Brookman on September 25-that they had not been taking orders and working, and that they had 684 INTERIOR ALTERATIONS, INC. been creating a controversy, stopping work, wandering around the building, and giving orders to laborers- claiming that Cappella and Guggenheim had reported these actions to him on that day. As pointed out above, Cappella did not corroborate Cardone's testimony con- cerning such a report. While Guggenheim agreed that he had spoken to Cardone that day regarding the two dis- chargees, he testified that he had reported only that Stark and Brookman had "stopped the laborers from working and I've pretty much had it." At no point did Guggenheim testify that he had reported to Cardone on September 25 that Stark and Brookman were refusing to work, were not taking orders, were creating a controver- sy at the site, and were wandering around the building. In short, Cardone's account of what had been reported to him, like other facets of his testimony, appeared to be intended as a device for precluding any possible conclu- sion that Stark's and Brookman's union activities had in- fluenced his decision to terminate them, in this instance by hurling as many emotion-laden complaints against them as possible. A review of Guggenheim's testimony also discloses de- ficiencies which serve to confirm my impression that he had not been testifying candidly concerning the reasons for his recommendation that Stark and Brookman be dis- charged. For example, while he claimed generally that they had been "meandering" around the jobsite on Sep- tember 25, rather than working-an assertion disputed by both dischargees-Guggenheim's own description of his remarks to them that day, as discussed above, omitted any mention of having asked them to stop "meandering." His entire concern that day, as reflected by his own ac- count of what he had said to Stark and Brookman during that morning, centered only on their "complaining." Indeed, as discussed above, Guggenheim's abrupt cor- rection of use of the word "complain" reflected the un- reliability of his testimony. The word was one that he had chosen to use throughout in reciting what had been said that day. His own accounts of the conversations that he had conducted with Stark and Brookman on Septem- ber 25 show that it had been an accurate description of his own source of dissatisfaction with them. His sudden correction of it appeared motivated only by his realiza- tion that its continued use might be disadvantageous to Respondent's position. Moreover, in the process of ex- pressing his dissatisfaction with its use, he created an in- consistency with his own testimony in another area. For, as noted in footnote 14, supra, he had charged Stark and Brookman with having created problems by complaining "day in and day out." However, in the process of at- tempting to correct the use of the word "complain," Guggenheim testified that it was not accurate because "everybody complains all day long. I complain." At no point did he explain how Stark's and Brookman's pur- ported complaints had differed from those made by others working on the site, including himself. Thus, to support his correction of continued use of the word "complain," Guggenheim, in effect, nullified his own as- sertion that Stark and Brookman had created problems by complaining "day in and day out." Guggenheim's attempt to correct use of the word "complain" led him into another assertion that served to undermine his credibility. In the process of testifying that "complain" was an inaccurate description of what Stark and Brookman had been doing, he claimed that they had "continued to stop the laborers from doing their work." Yet, examination of the undisputed events that had oc- curred demonstrates that this assertion is totally inaccu- rate. So far as the evidence shows, Stark and Brookman had but a single encounter with the laborers concerning their performance of work-the one involving Trainer and Ernie, occurring at the elevator during the morning of September 25. There is no evidence of any other even similar incident where Stark and Brookman had ap- proached laborers directly about work that they had been performing, either on September 25 or on any other date. Thus, there is no evidence to support Guggen- heim's use of the word "continued" to described Stark's and Brookman's purported offenses.20 I do not credit Guggenheim and Cardone regarding their reasons for having recommended and having decid- ed to, respectively, discharge Stark and Brookman. Rather, I conclude that, in reaching the termination deci- sion, Respondent had been motivated by its concern with the accelerating militancy of the carpenters in complain- ing about laborers performing work contractually allo- cated to carpenters represented by the Union and, con- comitantly, by its desire to eliminate the possibility that matters would reach the point where stronger action would be taken with the result that Respondent's ability to assign work might be restricted. Therefore, I conclude that by terminating Stark and Brookman on September 25, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Moreover, I conclude that Guggenheim's above-de- scribed statements on September 25, to "get the checks" and to give final checks to Stark and Brookman if they continued to protest assignment of carpenters' work to laborers, constituted threats of discharge for engaging in protected activity and, accordingly, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i. Interior Alterations, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in com- merce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening to discharge employees for protest- ing assignment of unit work, described in a collective- bargaining agreement, to nonunit employees and for seeking to implement the terms of that collective-bar- gainig agreement, Interior Alterations, Inc., has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. By discharging Rodger Stark and Richard H. Brookman on September 25, 1980, for protesting assign- ment of unit work to nonunit employees, Interior Alter- ations, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. :t Of course, Stark and Brookman had said that they would continue to engage in the protected activity of protesting laborers performing car- penters' work. But, that is a quite different matter from preventing labor- ers from actually working. 685 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Interior Alterations, Inc., engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. With regard to the latter, Interior Alter- ations, Inc., will be required to offer Rodger Stark and Richard H. Brookman immediate reinstatement to their former positions of employments ' as journeymen carpen- ters or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been assigned or hired to perform the work that they had been performing prior to their discharges on September 25, 1980. Additionally, Interior Alterations, Inc., will be required to make Stark and Brookman whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of their unlawful terminations, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis, making de- ductions for interim earnings, as prescribed in F: W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), enforcement denied on different grounds 322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER2 2 The Respondent, Interior Alteration, Inc., Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening discharge or engaging in any other re- prisals against employees for seeking to implement the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, or any other labor organization, and for protesting assign- ment of what they believe to be unit work, under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement, to employees not in the bargaining unit encompassed by that agree- ment. (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees with regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for engaging in activity on behalf of a labor organization or for engaging in activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. 2i While the Security Life Building projects may have been complet- ed, the record shows that Respondent has followed a practice of transfer- ring carpenters from project to project and, accordingly, completion of the Security Life Building projects is not entitled to any significance with respect to the reinstatement remedy. *2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Rodger Stark and Richard H. Brookman im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former positions of employment, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been assigned or hired to perform the work that they had been performing prior to their unlawful discharges on September 25, 1980, or, if their former po- sitions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of their discriminatory discharges, in the manner set forth above in The Remedy section of this Decision. (b) Expunge from its files any reference to the dis- charges of Rodger Stark and Richard H. Brookman on September 25, 1980, and notify each of them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of his unlawful discharge will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him. 23 (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, 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 Denver, Colorado, facility, and at all lo- cations where carpenters covered by its collective-bar- gaining agreement with United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America are working, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, after being duly signed by its authorized rep- resentative, shall be posted by Interior Alterations, Inc., immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 2" See Sterling Sugars, Inc., 261 NLRB 472 (1972). 2$ 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 Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 686 INTERIOR ALTERATIONS, INC. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or- dered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To engage in activities together for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from the exercise of any or all such activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you nor to engage in other reprisals against you for seeking to implement the terms of our collective-bargaining agreement with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, or any other labor organi- zation WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you nor to engage in other reprisals against you for protesting assignment of what you believe to be unit work, under the terms of a collective-bargaining agree- ment, to employees not in the bargaining unit en- compassed by that agreement. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against you with regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment, for engaging in activity on behalf of the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization, nor for engaging in activity protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related matter inter- fere with your rights set forth above which are guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer Rodger Stark and Richard H. Brookman immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been assigned or hired to perform the work that they had been performing prior to their unlawful discharges on September 25, 1980, or, if their former positions no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them, with interest on the amounts owing. WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the discharges of Rodger Stark and Richard H. Brookman on September 25, 1980, and WE WILL notify each one of them that this has been done and that evidence of the unlawful discharge will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him. INTERIOR Al TERATIONS, INC. 687