Asbestos Removal, Inc

352 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Asbestos Removal, Inc and Daniel J Stanley and Daniel E Jewell Cases 7-CA-28013 and 7- CA-28162 March 21, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY On November 8, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Walter H Maloney issued the attached deci- sion The Respondent filed a motion for reconsider- ation and brief in support, exceptions, and demand for oral argument, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, motion to strike the Respondent's exceptions, and a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs' and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified 3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Asbestos Removal, Inc, Southfield, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a) ' The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied as the record exceptions and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties The Respondents motion to reopen the record is also denied The Respondent had adequate opportunity at the hearing to present available evidence and there is no showing that the evidence it proposes to introduce was unavailable at that time The General Counsel alleges that the Respondents exceptions lack the specificity required by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations and that they contain references to facts that are not part of the record Although the Respondents exceptions do not conform exactly to the re quirements of Sec 102 46 they are not so deficient in this regard as to warrant striking Also because the Respondent has referred to facts that are not in the record we have not relied on any such references and under the circumstances find it unnecessary to strike these portions of the Respondents exceptions 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings 3 We find merit to the General Counsel s exception to the judges fail ure to order the Respondent to preserve and make available records nec essary for the computation of backpay In addition we shall order the Respondent to remove from its files any reference to the unlawful dis charge of the discriminatees "(a) Offer Daniel J Stanley, Curtis Elder, Daniel E Jewell, Glenn Jewell, and Vito Gillette immedi- ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva- lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en joyed, and make them whole for any loss of earn- ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision " 2 Insert the following as paragraphs 2(b) and (c) and reletter subsequent paragraphs "(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges and notify the employees in writing that it has been done and that the dis charges will not be used against them in any way "(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy ing, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order " 3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT discourage membership or activi- ties on behalf of Local Union No 334, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging you or otherwise discriminating against you in your hire or tenure WE WILL NOT discharge or discipline you be cause you have engaged in protected concerted ac tivities WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer Daniel J Stanley, Curtis Elder, Daniel E Jewell, Glenn Jewell, and Vito Gillette immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantial- ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previous- ly enjoyed and WE WILL make them whole for any 293 NLRB No 32 ASBESTOS REMOVAL 353 loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest WE WILL notify each of them that we have re- moved from our files any reference to their dis- charge and that the discharge will not be used against them in any way ASBESTOS REMOVAL, INC Mark D Rubin Esq, for the General Counsel Gary Eisenberg Esq, of Southfield, Michigan, for the Re spondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FINDINGS OF FACT WALTER H MALONEY Administrative Law Judge This case came on for heanng before at me Detroit, Michigan, on a consolidated unfair labor practice com plaint 1 issued by the Regional Director of the Board s Region 7, which alleges that Respondent Asbestos Re moval, Inc 2 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act More particularly, the consolidated complaint alleges that Re spondent discharged employees Daniel J Stanley, Curtis Elder Daniel E Jewell, Glenn Jewell, Vito Gillette, and Charles Pike because they engaged in the protected con certed activity of protesting the absence of showers on an asbestos removal job, as required by health and envi ronmental laws and regulations Respondent denies that it discharged anyone and asserts that the reason the indi viduals named in the consolidated complaint are no longer working for it is that they failed to show up for work when directed to do so and were deemed to be voluntary quits The issues here were drawn from these contentions 3 ' The principal docket entries in this case are as follows Charge in Case 7-CA-28013 filed by Daniel J Stanley an individual against Re spondent on April 25 1986 complaint issued against Respondent by the Regional Director for Region 7 on June 2 1988 charge was filed in Case 7-CA-28162 by Daniel E Jewell an individual against Respondent on June 8 1988 consolidated unfair labor practice complaint issued in both cases by the Regional Director for Region 7 on June 13 1988 Respond ent s answer was filed July 22 1988 heanng was held in Detroit Michi gan on August 31 1988 briefs were filed with me by the General Coun sel and Respondent on or before September 26 1988 2 Respondent admits and I find that it is a Michigan corporation having an office at Southfield Michigan and that it is involved in asbes tos abatement work on construction sites in the State of Michigan During the calendar year ending December 31 1987 Respondent per formed services valued in excess of $1 million for nonretail enterprises within the State of Michigan and for corporations that have gross reve nues in excess of $5 million and that sell and ship goods directly from the State of Michigan to points and places located outside the State Accord ingly the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act Local Union 334 Laborers International Union of North America AFL-CIO (the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act 3 Certain errors in the transcript are noted and corrected B The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices Respondent operates a firm that removes asbestos from old buildings Its employees have to be certified as having received extensive training in dealing with this substance Because of the carcinogenic effect of asbestos shards, stringent precautions must be taken on each job site to insulate employees from the materials they are handling Frequently the site owner employs a hygienist to monitor the removal operation as it progresses and to make daily checks of employees to see that they have not absorbed or retained asbestos fibres on themselves or their clothing Special throwaway uniforms are supplied by Respondent each day to asbestos workers This cloth ing includes overalls, a respirator, gloves, boots, and a mask, which are donned each morning and placed in dis posal bags each evening Another precaution used to protect employees is the installation of showers An air lock chamber around a so called clean room is normally set up at each construction site It is insulated from the rest of the building by visqueen or some other plastic substance A portable shower is installed next to the clean room for the use of employees before they leave work at the end of each day Normally an employee strips down to his underwear in the morning before put ting on protective clothing On quitting work he takes a shower to remove any asbestos contamination that may have become attached to his skin before putting on his street clothes and going home Two major types of removal techniques are used Pipe or other portable items containing asbestos coating are cut into lengths and wrapped in celophane before asbes tos is chipped away The debris is then placed in special containers for supervised disposal In some instances an entire room is torn down The room itself is wrapped in visqueen or some similar wrapping substance and then an entire wall or ceiling is removed and subjected to hygi enic disposal Needless to say all asbestos removal pro cedures are governed by a host of Federal, state, and county laws and regulations and by general regulatory agencies, some of which have inspectors available at short notice to respond to complaints The Respondent has had a contract for several years with the Union in this case a Detroit area local of the Laborers International Union The discrimmatees named in the consolidated complaint all live in the Saginaw Bay City area about 90 miles from Detroit, and are members of Laborers Local 1034 Most of them had been commut ing to Detroit each day to work for Respondent at an other Detroit area job located in a shopping center in the suburb of Redford As that job began to wind down, Re spondent began to transfer employees to the in town lo cation involved in this dispute, namely the removal of asbestos from a former Parke Davis warehouse located on the Detroit River, not far from the Renaissance Center The project is known as River Place and is being constructed by the Stroh Brewing Company and its president Peter Stroh, at the former Parke Davis site All the employees involved here began to work at River Place on Monday, March 21 1988 Employee Glenn Jewell testified credibly that on the first morning of his employment at River Place he asked 354 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Foreman Keith Pettit when the Company was going to install showers 4 Pettit said that they would be installed before lunch This did not happen so Jewell asked Pettit the same question early in the afternoon Pettit then said that showers would be available at the end of the day They were not Most of the employees involved in this dispute were assigned on Monday to clean out the base ment of building 54 on this site The area in question was about 60 by 125 feet and was divided into two rooms Respondent s witnesses testified that it was the Respond ent s intention to clean up one room in the basement, which had a water source, and to use it for a clean room and shower room before undertaking any asbestos re moval in the rest of the five story building However, the basement was littered with debris, some of it being pipe that was covered with asbestos and which had to be wrapped and removed before the room could be used for any purpose About eight asbestos removal workers were engaged in this task on Monday, while others were working elsewhere in the building While all employees were given protective clothing to wear while working, they were unable to shower at the end of their shift The record is unclear about what occurred on Tues day Several of the discnminatees did not work because they showed up at the job without a required tool and they were sent home On Wednesday, March 23, when they arrived at the jobsite, at least some of the discnmin atees went into building 54, found that showers had still not been erected, and walked out The building was open, in that some walls had been knocked down by a small bulldozer known as a Bobcat and wind could easily blow through from the nearby Detroit River On Monday a barrier had been set up in front of the build ing with a warning sign, which read Danger Do Not Enter Without Respiratory Equipment On Wednesday, this barrier was down and people were walking about in the building Employee Daniel J Stanley saw Foreman Pettit and asked him again where the showers were Pettit replied that one would be installed on the job Stanley objected telling Pettit that this was what Pettit had been saying on Monday and still there were no showers Stanley insisted that he wanted showers to be installed that day and suggested that Pettit call Robert J Myal Jr the Respondents superintendent in charge of field operations Pettit did so In the meantime Stanley and any others who had dressed in protective equipment took off their special clothing, dressed in their street clothes, and stood near the construction trailer waiting for Myal About an hour elapsed before Myal arrived I credit the testimony of Stanley and Glenn Jewell that when Myal arrived at the construction site he saw several employees including but not limited to those named in the consolidated complaint, standing about idle Stanley and others complained to Myal that building 54 was contaminated Myal abruptly told them that any em ployees who wanted to work should move to the right 4 I did not find Charging Party Daniel E Jewell to be a reliable wit ness and would not credit any of his testimony that was not independent ly corroborated On the other hand his brother Glenn Jewell and em ployee Daniel Stanley were credible and reliable witnesses and the others should get the off the job He turned angrily and went into the construction trailer 5 During the morning, the Jewell brothers left the prem ises temporarily to make some phone calls They called the business agent of the Laborers Local in Detroit and they telephoned a couple of public agencies The pur pose of these calls was to complain about the absence of showers on the River Place asbestos removal job Myal's initial direction to employees to go to work did not bear any results so he sent Pettit out to where they were standing He told the employees that Myal wanted them to go to work and said if they wanted to go to work to get in there Stanley spoke up and said that the problem had not been solved Stanley objected, The problem hasn t been solved yet What do you mean-go back in there?" Myal came out of the trailer, told the men again that if they wanted to work to move in one direction and if they did not, to get the off the job" Shortly thereafter, Ron Allen and Elton McDaniel, two business agents from the Union, arrived at the job site Myal again emerged from the trailer to ask them what they were doing on the job Allen told them that he had received a complaint about unsafe working condi tions Myal told them that there was no problem here At this point Stanley spoke up and said, There is a problem you got ten guys who want to know why we cant have a shower" Turning to Allen, Stanley said, Come on, Ron I'll take you for a walk in the building,' whereupon Myal stated, He s done] Myal summoned a security patrol, which arrived about 20 minutes later When they arrived Pettit told the security guards, I am foreman on this job We want these guys off the prem ises and we want them off now They waited a few minutes until Allen, who had been conferring with Myal, emerged from the trailer Allen asked the security guards whom they wanted off the premises and his attention was directed to about 10 or so individuals who were standing nearby At this point Foreman David Middleton arrived on the scene He told the group that health officials said that the job was shut down, that there would be a meet ing on Thursday and there would probably not be any work until Friday I credit corroborated testimony that he told the group that he would call them Stanley again spoke up and said that, We re going on the assumption that we may not have work on Friday either I have a family and I have to have a paycheck every week Are you going to call us?" Middleton said he would Like all the discriminatees in this case, Middleton lives in the Saginaw Bay City area and had been acquainted with them before they came to work for Respondent Stanley asked Middleton if he would bring paychecks to Bay s Myal was not a credible witness and I place no reliance on his tests mony Specifically I discredit his statement apparently heard by no one else who testified that he told the employees on this occasion that the job had been checked out for environmental and health problems and was found to be acceptable by the inspectors Myal admits that he was angry during the events that transpired on the morning of March 23 and used profanity or vulgarity in speaking to employees ASBESTOS REMOVAL City if there was no work on Friday Middleton agreed to do so 6 At least 10 employees and the 2 business agents were escorted off the premises There is a conflict in testimony whether all bargaining unit employees left the premises at this time Employee witnesses said that this is what occurred Myal said that some of the 20 employees who had been on the job that morning went to lunch, re turned, and then went back to work for a short while when things calmed down He agreed that everyone worked a short day On Thursday a total of 13 bargaining unit employees worked Three of them had not worked on Wednesday, the day of the incident, and one employee who worked on Thursday had not worked before on the jobsite during the week of March 21 On Friday, a total of 19 asbestos removal employees worked, including 4 who had not worked the first 3 days of that week On Wednesday and again on Thursday, a representa tive of the Michigan State Department of Health inspect ed the jobsite to look into the complaint about lack of showers and containment He made a detailed report about what he found and about what he was told by management representatives In that report he concluded that no violations of Michigan health laws existed on the premises In coming to this conclusion, he accepted a management explanation that asbestos removal work had yet not begun throughout the entire project and would not begin until a visqueen enclosure was completed He noted that some employees had been asked to wrap dam aged pipe in plastic material for transfer to a landfill and that such employees had been furnished protective cloth ing and respirators The record in this case reflects that a shower was installed on Thursday afternoon It is undisputed that no one representing Respondent ever contacted any of the discriminatees named in the consolidated complaint for the purpose of telling them to return to work at River Place On Friday Stanley phoned Middleton but could not reach him On Satur day, Stanley and Daniel Jewell met Middleton at Stretch s Bar, a dinner club located in Bay City They asked Middleton if he had their paychecks with him He replied that he was sorry but he did not Middleton then excused himself to make a phone call When he returned to the table he said, You guys are laid off Your checks are in the mail Stanley said he knew that they had been laid off but the question was for how long Middleton had no answer On Monday of the following week, several of the dis criminatees phoned Respondents office to find out about their employment status They asked to speak to Myal but Myal was not available to take some of the calls Stanley asked the secretary answering his call why em ployees had been laid off and where their checks were She replied that no one had been laid off and that the checks were in the mail Glenn Jewell s call was re turned by Myal He asked Myal what was going on Myal told him that nothing was going on that his check was in the mail and that if he did not receive it, he 6 I discredit Myal s testimony that he instructed the departing employ ces to return to work on Friday 355 should call back When Curtis Elder called Respondent s office on Monday the secretary who answered the phone said that, to the best of her knowledge, the em ployees who walked off the job had been laid off Even tually all employees received their checks in the mail Respondent stated that it handled the payment of these employees in this manner because the applicable provi sion of its collective bargaining agreement provides that employees who quit shall be paid on their regular weekly payday by mail C Analysis and Conclusions Discriminatee Charles Pike was employed as an asbes tos removal worker at the River Place job on Monday, March 21 He did not report for work on the following Tuesday or on Wednesday and he was not present at the jobsite when the incidents of Wednesday morning took place Pike s only involvement with any, protected con certed activities was his presence in building 54 on Monday lending his voice to a complaint registered by others that Respondent should have installed showers for asbestos removal workers If Pike engaged in any other union or protected concerted activities, the record does not disclose them, and Pike did not show up at the hear ing to enlarge on the matter I do not believe that the events of Monday, March 21, few and inconsequential as they were, played any significant role in the termination of the individuals named in the consolidated complaint, including Pike, other than to provide background for Wednesdays events The precipitating cause of the ter minations involved in this case occurred on Wednesday morning when Pike was absent Accordingly I recom mend that so much of the consolidated complaint alleges the Respondent terminated Charles Pike because of his protected concerted activities be dismissed There is no dispute that on Wednesday morning none of the other five discriminatees performed any work The same probably held true for all the employees who reported to the jobsite that day The reason that no work was performed was that showers had not been installed in a clean room which would permit employees to remove contamination from their bodies after handling asbestos all day 7 On at least three occasions during the morning the discriminatees in this case as well as others were directed to go to work and they refused Such a refusal amounts to a strike The parties to this proceeding were covered by a col lective bargaining agreement effective on September 30 1987 for a 2 year term, which was concluded by the State of Michigan Laborers District Council and Locals 334 and 1076 and the Asbestos Abatement Contractors and Respondent individually The contract provides in article X 7 It was frivolous for Daniel Jewell to contend that he did not go to work on Wednesday morning because when he came on the jobsite he did not know precisely where to go He had been working in building 54 on Monday as had all the other employees and the work in that area had not been completed Some employees either went up to or into that building in order to ascertain that showers had not yet been installed In the middle of the day Pettit directed employees to go to work and clear ly pointed out where work was to be performed No one other than Daniel Jewell had any question about what work was being assigned 356 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is further agreed that there will be no stoppage of work or lockout due to any violations of the Agree ment unless the Union or the Employer refuse to comply with all steps of the Grievance Procedure The same contract provides, under a heading entitled Safety, that All Employers and employees working under this Agreement shall abide by all applicable federal state and local safety laws, rules and regulations with regard to the Asbestos Abatement Industry Plainly, their strike was over an issue that the controlling collective bargaining agreement required to be resolved under its grievance procedure, not by self help The strike was in violation of the no strike clause of the con tract Although, under other circumstances, a strike is a fundamental form of protected concerted activity under these circumstances it was unprotected, rendering the strikers liable to discharge or any other discipline that might be imposed at the discretion of the Employer The General Counsel argues that even though the strike in which the discrimmatees engaged in on March 23 might be unprotected Respondent condoned this ac tivity and having condoned it, was not at liberty thereaf ter to use it as a reason for discharge Indeed, if Re spondent s theory of this case is to be accepted, it never discharged anyone at all and was in fact directing strik ing employees to return to work the following Friday The strike was plainly condoned Two of the cases cited by the General Counsel are clearly in point Davis & Burton Contractors, 261 NLRB 728 (1982), Jones & Knight Inc v NLRB, 445 F 2d 97 (7th Cir 1971) I have discredited testimony in the record that sup ports the contention that Myal and possibly others, di rected the discnminatees to return on Friday I have credited testimony to the effect that Middleton told em ployees that there was going to be a meeting on Thurs day that there would probably be work on Friday, and that the Company would get in touch with the employ ees who were then being escorted from the premises While not as emphatic an act of condonation as Myal s asserted statement Middleton s words also amounted to condonation of the refusal of employees to work on March 23 because a shower had not been installed His directions also disclosed that as of the moment the em ployees in question were leaving the jobsite Respondent had not yet decided their fate Sometime between Wednesday at noon and Saturday afternoon, when Middleton informed Jewell and Stanley that they had been laid off, Respondent discharged four of the six individuals whose status is here in question I conclude that with one exception, this event took place either on Thursday or Friday, when it hired or trans ferred to the River Place project enough other asbestos workers to make up a full complement With this same exception, the discharges did not occur on Wednesday when employees were removed from the premises and told that Respondent would be in touch with them (or according to Respondents discredited scenario that they should report back on Friday) Stanley s discharge presents a unique situation During the dispute on Wednesday morning, union representa tives came to the plant to find out what was going on It is undisputed that Business Agent Allen asked Myal what the problem was, and Myal replied that there was no problem At this point Stanley chimed into the con versation saying that there was a problem and that the presence of a lot of employees standing around not working was evidence that there was a problem In Myal s presence, Stanley offered to show Allen around the project in order to point out exactly what the prob lem was At that point Myal stated angrily, He s done Stanley was discharged there and then, and the cause that prompted the discharge was abundantly clear Others who had also engaged in an unprotected strike were still on the payroll, but Stanley had been removed The reason he was discharged was not that he had en gaged in a strike in violation of the provisions of a no strike clause The reason for his discharge was that he had offered to show a union representative around the premises to point out the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the protest Stanley s offer to escort Allen through the jobsite was a protected concerted activity and a union activity as well Having discharged Stanley for engaging in such activity, Respondent violated Sec tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act The other employees were discharged either on Thurs day or Friday They did not quit but were removed from Respondents payroll when Respondent found enough substitutes to continue the job The reason that the Respondent fired them was also abundantly clear These employees had the contumacy to refuse to work to protest what they believed to be an unsafe condition on the job Whether the absence of showers was in fact an unsafe condition is immaterial The hygienist from the Michigan Department of Health did not think that condi tions at River Place warranted censure, but he was not among those who were assigned to work on a daily basis with the contaminated material that was all over the building Respondent did in fact install a shower on Thursday afternoon and it takes little imagination to re alize that the work stoppage that took place on Wednes day morning provided it with a substantial incentive to move in this direction at a faster pace than it had exhibit ed before the walkout Respondent discharged Elder the Jewell brothers and Gillette because they were a part of this concerted activity Because Respondent had previ ously excused the fact that their walkout had taken place in violation of the contract, their activity was also pro tected so the discharges that were effected as a result of that activity violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I so find and conclude CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Asbestos Removal Inc is now and at all times ma terial has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 Local Union No 334, Laborers International Union of North America AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act ASBESTOS REMOVAL 357 3 By discharging Daniel J Stanley because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, Re spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 4 By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclu sion of Law 3 and by discharging Curtis Elder, Daniel E Jewell Glenn Jewell, and Vito Gillette because they engaged in protected concerted activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The above unfair labor practices have a close, intimate, and adverse effect on the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6), and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend to the Board that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act I will recommend that Respondent be required to offer full and immediate rein statement to Daniel J Stanley , Curtis Elder Daniel E Jewell, Glenn Jewell, and Vito Gillette to their former or substantially equivalent employment, without preju dice to seniority or other benefits that they previously enjoyed, with backpay computed in accordance with the formula set forth in the Woolworth8 case, with interest thereon at the short term Federal rate used to compute interest on underpayments and overpayments of Federal income taxes under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) I will also recommend that Respondent be required to post the usual notice advising its employees of their rights and of the results of this case On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed9 ORDER The Respondent, Asbestos Removal Inc Detroit, Michigan its officers agents successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of Local Union No 334 Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organs zation, by discharging employees or otherwise discrimi nating against them in their hire or tenure (b) Discharging or otherwise disciplining employees because they have engaged in protected concerted activi ties (c) By any like or related means interfering with re straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to Daniel J Stanley Curtis Elder Daniel E Jewell, Glenn Jewell, and Vito Gillette full and immedi ate reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva lent employment, without prejudice to their seniority or to other rights previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits that they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful practices found, in the manner described above in the remedy section of this de cision (b) Post at its offices at jobsite in the Detroit, Michi gan area copies of the attached notice marked Appen dix 10 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 after being signed by the Respondents authorized representative shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus tomarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de faced, or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that insofar as the con solidated complaint in these cases alleges matters that have not been found to be unfair labor practices the con solidated complaint is dismissed 8 F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) 9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s 10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National poses Labor Relations Board