Abestos Workers Local 80 (West Virginia Insulators)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 1124 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Heat and Frost Insula-
tors and Asbestos Workers, Local No. 80, AFL-
CIO (West Virginia Master Insulators Associa-
tion) and Rick Endicott. Case 9-CB-5349
8 June 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 26 September 1983 Administrative Law
Judge William F. Jacobs issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply
brief to the 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, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified. I
Amended Conclusions of Law
We adopt the judge's conclusions of law, with
the following modification:
Substitute the following for Conclusion of
Law 3.
"3. By discriminatorily selecting from the preap-
prenticeship classification, for inclusion in a new
classification of improver (apprentice), individuals
who were close family members, and giving those
individuals priority in referral over other preap-
prentices 27 September 1982 and thereafter solely
and exclusively because they were family relations
of members, the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act."
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, International Association of Heat and
Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local No.
80, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a).
i Contrary to the findings of the judge, we do not find that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) by job referrals it made to
members prior to 27 September 1982. Those referrals are not alleged to
be violations in the complaint, the complaint was not subsequently
amended to encompass such allegations, and the General Counsel specifi-
cally disclaimed the occurrence of any violation in referral before that
date. In these circumstances, we find these matters were not fully litigat-
ed.
270 NLRB No. 172
"(a) Discriminatorily selecting from the preap-
prenticeship classification, for inclusion in the clas-
sification of improver (apprentice), individuals who
are close family relations of members, and giving
said individuals priority in referral over other refer-
ral applicants 27 September 1982 and thereafter
solely and exclusively because they are family rela-
tions of members."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c).
"(c) Make whole all referral applicants for any
loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against them 27 September 1982 and thereaf-
ter by payment to them of sums of money equal to
that which they normally would have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination against
them, as limited by Section 10(b) of the Act, until
such time as the Respondent Union properly refers
them to employment in a nondiscriminatory
manner pursuant to the lawful operation of a refer-
ral system based on objective criteria or standards,
less net earnings during such period, backpay and
interest thereon to be computed in the manner set
forth in the section hereof entitled 'The Remedy."'
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
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 WIL NOT select from the preapprentice clas-
sification, for inclusion in the classification of im-
prover (apprentice), individuals who are close
family relations of members, and give said individ-
uals priority in referral over other referral appli-
cants solely and exclusively because they are
family relations of members.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner attempt to
perpetuate the practice of basing priority of referral
on family relationship.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees or applicants for em-
ployment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL maintain and operate our exclusive job
referral system in a nondiscriminatory manner
based on objective criteria or standards without
regard to family relationship.
WE WILL initiate and maintain a comprehensive
recordkeeping system which will reflect all avail-
1124
ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 80 (WEST VIRGINIA INSULATORS)
able job opportunities and referrals which will fully
disclose the basis on which each referral is made,
and make such records available to job applicants
to enable them to determine for themselves that
their referral rights are protected and that referrals
are made in a fair and impartial manner.
WE WILL make whole all referral applicants for
any loss of earnings suffered as a result of our dis-
crimination against them, commencing 27 Septem-
ber 1982, with interest.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND
ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 80,
AFL-CIO
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM F. JACOBS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me on April 13 and 14, 1983, at
Huntington, West Virginia. The charge was filed on
August 23, 1982,' and amended on September 3 by Rich
E. Endicott, an individual. Complaint issued December
21 alleging that International Association of Heat &
Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 80, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter called the Union, inducted 13 new ap-
prentice members,2 who had not been accepted by the
Joint Apprenticeship Committee, without publicizing its
intention to consider new apprentice applicants; that the
13 new apprentices were chosen on the basis of their
status as brothers, brothers-in-law, sons, or sons-in-law of
Respondent's members; and that subsequently these new
apprentices were referred to jobs on the basis of their
new status before other job applicants were referred,
thus resulting in certain named employers discriminating
against the remaining job applicants, all in violation of
Section 8(bXIXA) and (2). In its answer the Union
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Representatives of all parties were present and were
given full opportunity to participate in the hearing.
Briefs were subsequently filed by the parties. Based on
the entire record including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs submitted, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Union admits jurisdiction and its status as a labor
organization. I so find.
The Unfair Labor Practices
The Union and the West Virginia Master Insulators
Association, herein called the Association, have been
parties to a series of collective-bargaining agreements
All dates are in 1982 unless otherwise indicated.
s Hereinafter referred to as the favored 13, namely: Dennis Ball, Gary
Burgess, Mark Burgess, David Dillon, James Dingess, Gregory Good-
rich, Jack Hoffsted, Terrence Hopkins, James Hudson, Jimmy Mackey,
James McLain, Daniel Surbaugh, and Danny Walker.
over a period of many years, the most recent relevant
agreement covering the period June 1, 1980, through
May 31, 1983. Article 16 of said agreement provides that
"the Union shall be the sole and exclusive source of re-
ferrals of applicants for employment." The same article
provides further:
5. The Union shall maintain a register of appli-
cants for employment established on the basis of the
groups listed below. Each applicant for employment
shall be registered in the highest priority group for
which he qualifies.
GROUP I shall include any employee who has
been employed four (4) full years or more as an As-
bestos Worker in the Building and Construction In-
dustry within the area defined in Article III of this
Agreement, as either a Mechanic or an apprentice,
and who has passed a Mechanic examination given
by a duly constituted Local Union of the Asbestos
Workers International or a Trade Board to which a
Local Union of the Asbestos Workers International
is a party. The examination shall be waived for
anyone employed as a Mechanic and otherwise
qualified to be in Group I on the effective date of
this Agreement. (Group I applicants shall have
bumping privileges over Group II employees who
are working for a signatory Employer.)
GROUP II shall include any employee who has
been employed for a period of 2000 hours during
the previous one (1) year as an Asbestos Worker in
the Building and Construction Industry within the
area described in Article III of the Agreement, and
who has at least four (4) years experience as an As-
bestos Worker in the Building and Construction In-
dustry.
GROUP III all applicants for employment who
have six (6) months' experience in the trade, as de-
fined in Article III, are residents of the geographi-
cal area constituting the normal construction labor
market and who have been employed for at least six
(6) months in the last three years in the trade under
a collective bargaining agreement between the par-
ties to this Agreement. (Group III applicants shall
have bumping privileges over Group IV employees
who are working for a signatory Employer.)
Apprentice applicants must be high school gradu-
ates, of good moral character, who are physically
fit, and successfully pass an aptitude and intelligence
examination.
GROUP IV all other applicants for employment.
Despite the language of the contract quoted above, re-
ferrals, in practice, were made in a somewhat different
order from described. Thus, after individuals in Group I
and II were referred, individuals in Group III were re-
ferred next and this group consisted, historically, of ap-
prentices s who had been accepted by the Joint Appren-
3 Apprentices, according to the "Asbestos-Workers apprenticeship
standards," do not have to meet the requirements outlined in the defini-
tion of Group III referrals insofar as experience in the trade is concerned.
1125
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ticeship Committee pursuant to the requirements of arti-
cle V of the labor agreement. Following the referral of
apprentices, those individuals in Group IV, pre-appren-
tices, were referred. This system of referral has been in
effect for several years and was mutually agreed on with
the establishment of the Joint Apprenticeship Committee
which consists of an equal number of representatives
from labor and management.
Since the establishment of the Joint Apprenticeship
Committee (JAC) in 1970, it has evaluated apprentice ap-
plicants in accordance with preestablished criteria and
selected those for the apprenticeship program based on
standards formulated by the Association and the Union
in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training. Prior to the
events described infra, since its inception, only the JAC
selected apprentices and only those JAC selected appren-
tices were afforded Group III priority.
The JAC, in January, interviewed, evaluated, and se-
lected a new group of applicants for the apprenticeship
program and notified the Union of its choices the follow-
ing February 18. There were 30 names on the list. In
March the Union held an executive board meeting and a
general membership meeting at which the JAC's list of
successful apprenticeship applicants was discussed. Dis-
satisfaction was voiced at both meetings at the failure of
the JAC to choose a sufficient number of relatives of the
membership for the apprenticeship program, particularly
by Joel Ross, the Union's business manager, who told
Rick Endicott, the Charging Party herein, that he was
"mad as hell" about how the JAC had run things. At the
March 13 regular meeting of the union membership, the
Union's vice president reported that the Federal Bureau
of Apprenticeship and Training had approved the selec-
tion of the new apprentices and suggested that the new
class be accepted by the body. He stated further, howev-
er, that several problems had arisen concerning the new
selection, and that as a result, a question had been asked
about forming a new classification of improvers. 4 Later
during the meeting, Ross also commented on the selec-
tion of the new apprentices and stated that he felt that
the time had come to consider no longer having a joint
apprenticeship program and replacing it with an appren-
ticeship program operated solely by the Union. He stated
that he felt that this was necessary due, in part, to the
most recent selection of apprentices by the JAC. He then
made the following motion which was seconded and car-
ried:
Effective March 15, 1982 Local 80 will establish
an IMPROVERS CLASSIFICATION for referral
purposes. IMPROVERS will be referred on a prior-
ity basis after Mechanics and Apprentices. To qual-
ify for the IMPROVER CLASSIFICATION an
employee must have performed work for a signato-
ry contractor for at least 1,900 hours during the last
thirty (30) month period.
4 Though the contract did not contain such a classification at the time,
there had been such a classification in use some years before.
Between March 15 and April 2, pursuant to the
motion, a sheet entitled "Improver Classification"s was
circulated for signature. During this period of time the
document was signed by 8 individuals, 7 of whom are
among the favored 13. During the same period, the fa-
vored 13 all filed application forms for membership in
the Union as improvers.
According to Ross' testimony the applications for
membership filed by the favored 13 had not been solicit-
ed nor had the fact been publicized that the Union had
any intention of considering new applications for mem-
bership. The favored 13 had all been classified as pre-ap-
prentices prior to their filing for membership as improver
members and Ross admitted during his testimony that
their qualifications were no better than other pre-appren-
tices. Thus, the 13 individuals later accepted into mem-
bership in the Union, in the new improver classification,
were in no way different from other pre-apprentices
prior to their reclassification as improvers, except insofar
as they were closely related to members.
On April 3 the 13 applicants, all sons, sons-in-law, or
stepsons of members, were voted into membership as im-
provers. 6 This included the seven who had signed the
improver classification referral sheet plus six others.
Following the signing of the improvers classification
referral sheet by the first eight individuals, a 10-day
period elapsed before additional signatures were placed
on the document. Then between April 12 and May 17,
10 more individuals signed it. None of these were among
the favored 13 and in fact the remaining 6 sons of mem-
bers, by this time improver members of the Union, never
did bother to sign the improver classification referral
sheet.
Similarly, during this same approximate period most of
those individuals who signed the improver classification
referral sheet between April 12 and May 17 also filed ap-
plications for improver membership in the Union. No
action, however, was ever taken on their applications de-
spite the fact that eight out of the nine applicants met the
1900-hour requirement.
Meanwhile on March 16, at a meeting of the Associa-
tion, Ross told the employer representatives that the
Union was in favor of eliminating the JAC and institut-
ing a union-run apprenticeship program. As noted above,
however, steps had already been taken to implement the
move.
Back in January when the JAC held its examination
for applicants for apprenticeship, those who took the ex-
amination were all in the Group IV pre-apprentice classi-
fication. When 30 of the applicants were chosen as ap-
prentices these, in accordance with historic precedent,
were placed in Group III while those applicants who
were unsuccessful remained as Group IV pre-appren-
I This document has been mistakenly regarded by the General Counsel
as an actual referral sheet. Apparently relying on this document and the
testimony of Ross, which I reject, the General Counsel concluded that
simply because certain individuals who signed this sheet were subsequent-
ly referred to jobs, they were referred to those jobs as improvers. Analy-
ses of the actual referral cards, discussed infra, indicates that only the fa-
vored 13 sons of members received referrals as improvers while the
others were referred as pre-apprentices-helpers and material handlers.
I The right of the Union to receive new members is not in issue.
1126
ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 80 (WEST VIRGINIA INSULATORS)
tices. In his letter of February 18, John Martin, secretary
of the JAC, advised Ross that the attached list of 30 ap-
prentices was to be referred for employment in the order
of the numbered listing. 7 He added:
Those applicants who were not selected for the
Apprenticeship Program will comprise the new pre-
apprentice referral list. This list will be maintained
in the Office of the Secretary of the Joint Appren-
ticeship Committee. If and when you have need to
refer pre-apprentices for employment please contact
the Secretary and the information will be available
for your disposal.
Though Martin thus offered to supply the Union with
the names of pre-apprentices as needed, the Union reject-
ed this offer and instead requested that the JAC supply it
with the full list of pre-apprentices. It also took the
action described above, namely, the creation of the new
improver classification and the filling of that classifica-
tion, as of April 3, with the 13 close relatives of mem-
bers.
On April 22 Ross wrote a letter to several contractors
listing the names of the 13 sons of members and request-
ing the contractors to make vacation deductions from
their pay in accordance with these employees' prior au-
thorizations, thus drawing attention to their new status as
members to be given priority over temporary pre-ap-
prentice employees. On April 27 Ross sent the following
letter to the Association and to all contractor members
thereof:
Gentlemen:
During the last few weeks there has been a great
deal of speculation and rumors circulating concern-
ing some new members of Local 80. I hope that by
means of this communique we will be able to dispel
any and all myths as to these rumors.
First, let me give a little background on these
new members. They are employees who are em-
ployed by the Association Members and have been
used as a supplemental work force by employers
throughout the Local's jurisdiction. All of these em-
ployees have the qualification required by the Joint
Apprenticeship Committee. They are part of a train-
ing program established by the local Union to pro-
vide skilled employees for the industry.
As you are aware the primary function of any
labor organization is to supply competent and
skilled employees to the employers and clientele
they service. One way of doing this is through
training programs. The Union will see that these
new members are trained in all phases of the insula-
tion industry available, including any and all new
methods.
Since these new members are not a part of the
present program they will not be afforded any more
favorable treatment than the indentured apprentice
presently recognized by the employers. Further-
more, it is not the intent of the Local for these new
In order of their scores.
members to have priority over the indentured ap-
prentice.
Since the employers have been employing these
employees now for some time, I would assume you
would have no objection to continue using them
now that they have become members and are un-
dertaking a training program to prepare them for
the future along with their fellow members who are
in the Joint Apprenticeship Program. By using
these young people we will not only be adding to
the available work force qualified personnel but also
be able to compete economically with any force in
the insulation business. They should also help in se-
curing future maintenance contracts for our em-
ployers, since this provides us with approximately
80 apprentices. As has been previously stated our
goal is to have these members working at the trade
and eventually we will all be able to see worthwhile
results of this venture.
I would like to set down with the Association
members and further discuss this in detail and out-
line our objectives for these new members at your
earliest convenience.
Your prompt response to this matter will be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
/s/ Joel Ross
Business Manager
Thus, in short, Ross herein advises all contractors that
the new members, the 13 favored sons of members, are
to be regarded as apprentices, on an equal par with the
apprentices selected through the JAC the previous Janu-
ary. It should be noted that the letter nowhere mentions
the term "improver," nor does it allude to the new clas-
sification. Clearly, the request for special treatment was
meant to be limited to just the 13 relatives of members
and not to just any pre-apprentices who might consider
themselves eligible for acceptance into the new improver
classification.
The record contains no documentation or other evi-
dence covering referrals that may have been made in
April or May. It does, however, contain referral sign-in
sheets for June and months following. Ross described
these sheets8 as a "list of those that's been referred out."
These referral sheets have three columns. The first
column is a list of mechanics. The second column is enti-
tled "Apprentice" g and lists apprentices including many
selected in January by the JAC but none1 0 of the indi-
viduals who signed the improver classification referral
sheets" discussed herein. The third column entitled "Im-
prover" lists the names of 11 individuals--all new im-
prover members, 12 but none of the individuals who
s G.C. Exh. II.
s So entitled on four of five pages; it is entitled "Apprentice and Imp."
on the first page.
1o Many names are illegible.
" G.C. Exh. 8.
a The two new improver members not on the list, David Dillon and
Dennis Ball, were working already. See G.C. Exh. 8.
1127
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed the improver classification sheets who were not of
the favored 13. The dates and names of the improvers
were placed on this mechanic-apprentice-improver list
from June 4 through July 26. Thus, the names of the fa-
vored 13 were maintained by the Union on the same list
as journeyman mechanics and JAC selected apprentices.
This list indicates that after all of the JAC apprentices
had been referred to jobs, the last one on August 13,
Mark Burgess, Danny Walker, and James McLain were
referred to jobs on August 16 and Greg Goodrich was
referred out on August 26 and October 29. Referral
cards for these referrals were not placed in evidence.
The names of no pre-apprentices appear on this mechan-
ics-apprentice-improver list.
There is in the record also a pre-apprentice referral
sign-in list with referrals dating between August 27 and
February 1983. This list contains the names of pre-ap-
prentices but includes several individuals whose names
appear on the improver classification referral sheets but
who are not among the favored 13. A comparison of re-
ferral lists clearly indicates that of those who applied for
membership as improvers and who may or may not have
signed the improvers classification referral list, only the
favored 13 were placed on the special mechanics-appren-
tices-improvers referral list whereas those individuals
who were not accepted as members were placed on the
pre-apprentice referral list even though they had applied
for improver membership and had signed the improver
classification referral list.
Inspection of referral cards'3 placed in the record by
the General Counsel reveals that the favored 13 were all
referred out to jobs with their union membership regis-
tration numbers indicated in the blank reserved for that
purpose and all classified on their referral cards as ap-
prentices.14 On the other hand, the referral cards' 5
issued to those individuals who signed the improver list
and who applied for improver membership but who
were not accepted indicate that those people were not
issued registration numbers and were classified as tempo-
rary employees (helpers or material handlers) rather than
apprentices. Each of their referral cards bore the nota-
tion that they were to receive $11.01 per hour, 30 cents
per hour below the apprenticeship wage.
Thus, it is apparent that the only improvers being sent
out on referral in that category were the sons, sons-in-
law, and stepsons who made up the category of accepted
improver members. All others were sent out as pre-ap-
prentices. From the history of the case, the testimony,
the correspondence, and the documentation, it is clear
that after the JAC, in January, failed to select a sufficient
number of the members' relatives for the apprenticeship
program, the Union created a new classification of indi-
viduals, comparable to apprentices, made up of close rel-
atives of members, more particularly of sons of members
and placed this group of 13 pre-apprentices, called im-
" G.C. Exhs. 12a-q.
Only a few of the referral cards were placed in evidence. Referral
cards for referrals made prior to September were for the most part not
offered into evidence.
14 One of Terrence Hopkins' referral cards was not checked as to clas-
sification. Gary Burgess' card mistakenly classified him as a journeyman.
"I G.C. Exh. 19.
provers, above their fellow pre-apprentices in the referral
priority to the detriment of the latter group's right to
equal treatment.
After segregating the names of the 13 relatives and
placing them in the special classification of improver,
Ross, on June 10, wrote a letter to the JAC requesting it
to send its list of pre-apprentices. 16 Martin did not imme-
diately send the requested list but rather, on August 20,
sent letters to the individuals on his pre-apprentice list,
inquiring as to whether they wished to continue to be
considered as pre-apprentices. As a result of Martin's in-
quiry a revised pre-apprenticeship list was sent by him to
the Union, the first part on September 14 and the rest on
October 5. The revised pre-apprentice list no longer in-
cluded the names of the 13 new improver members be-
cause they were considered apprentices by the Union
and had been placed beginning June 4 on the mechanics-
apprentice-improver referral list. The revised pre-appren-
tice list sent by Martin did, however, include the names
of 8 of the 11 pre-apprentices who had signed the im-
prover classification referral list but who had not been
accepted as improver members.
With the receipt of the revised pre-apprentice list, re-
ferrals continued to be made on the same basis as they
had been since the favored 13 had been admitted into
membership.17 The new improver members, i.e., the 13
sons of members, continued to receive priority treatment
over pre-apprentices. The pre-apprentice classification in-
cluded, as before, those individuals who unsuccessfully
had applied for improver membership whether or not
they had signed the improver classification referral list.
According to Ross, since the favored 13 were admitted
to membership and issued membership cards indicating
that they were apprentices, none of them had been out of
work. The same cannot be said of the pre-apprentices
who were not granted such favored treatment.
Analysis and Conclusions
I have found that the Union created an entirely new
classification called "Improver" and selected only the
sons, sons-in-law, and stepsons, 13 in number, to fill this
new classification. I have also found that the Union sub-
sequently gave the favored individuals selected for inclu-
sion in the new classification priority in referral over all
other pre-apprentices. I find the establishment of this
new classification for the benefit of relatives of members
and the priority in referral awarded to them to be arbi-
trary, invidious, and irrelevant to legitimate union inter-
ests. Miranda Fuel Co., 140 NLRB 181 (19 62 ).'8 By
giving priority in referral to some applicants because of
their special relationship to union members and denying
access to others because they do not have such a rela-
tionship, the Union is classifying applicants on an arbi-
"i The record indicates that Ross made several oral requests before
sending the June 10 letter.
" All apprentices had been referred out by August 13 and certain im-
provers on the mechanic-apprentice-improver list (G.C. Exh. 11) had
been sent out on August 16. Finally, after the lists of available mechanics,
apprentices, and improvers had been exhausted, the first pre-apprentice
on the new list was referred out on August 27.
Is Enf. denied 326 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1963).
1128
ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 80 (WEST VIRGINIA INSULATORS)
trary basis.I 9 Respondent has the duty to refrain from
such conduct where it adversely affects the employment
status of applicants for employment whom they are ex-
pected fairly to represent. I find that the Union, under
the circumstances of this case, has violated Section
8(bXI)(A) and (2) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Association and its employer-members are en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily selecting from the pre-appren-
ticeship classification, for inclusion in a new classification
of improver (apprentice), individuals who were close
family relations of members, and thereafter giving those
individuals priority in referral over all other pre-appren-
tices solely and exclusively because they were family re-
lations of members, the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Union gave priority to appli-
cants for referral on the basis of family relationship, and
having further found that the establishment of such an
arbitrary classification is in violation of Section
8(b)(l)(A) and (2), I shall recommend that the Union be
ordered to cease and desist from such activity.
Having found that the Union discriminatorily selected
from the pre-apprenticeship classification, for inclusion in
a new classification of improver (apprentice), individuals
who were close family relations of members, and thereaf-
ter gave said individuals priority in referral over all
other pre-apprentices solely and exclusively because they
were family relations of members in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2), I shall recommend that it make all re-
ferral applicants who were adversely affected whole for
any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them by payment to them of sums of money
equal to that which they normally would have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination against them,
as limited by Section 10(b) of the Act, until such time as
Respondent Union ceases to give improver priority to
the referral of the 13 relatives of members named in the
complaint and herein, and reestablishes a nondiscrimina-
tory system of referral based on objective criteria or
standards, less net earnings during such period, backpay
and interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).2o
't Longshoremen ILWU Local 13 (Pacific Maritime 4ssn.), 183 NLRB
221 (1970), 549 F.2d 1346; 210 NLRB 952 (1974); 192 NLRB 260 (1971).
10 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2 1
ORDER
The Respondent, International Association of Heat &
Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local No. 80,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily selecting from the pre-apprentice-
ship classification, for inclusion in the classification of
improver (apprentice) individuals who are close family
relations of members, and giving said individuals priority
in referral over other referral applicants solely and exclu-
sively because they are family relations of members.
(b) In any other manner attempting to perpetuate the
practice of basing priority of referral on family relation-
ship.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
(a) Maintain and operate its exclusive job referral
system in a nondiscriminatory manner based on objective
criteria or standards without regard to family relation-
ships.
(b) Initiate and maintain a comprehensive recordkeep-
ing system which will reflect all available job opportuni-
ties and referrals which will fully disclose the basis on
which each referral is made, and make such records
available to job applicants to enable them to determine
for themselves that their referral rights are protected and
that referrals are made in a fair and impartial manner.
(c) Make whole all referral applicants for any loss of
earnings suffered as a result of the discrimiation against
them by payment to them of sums of money equal to
that which they normally would have earned as wages
from the date of the discrimination against them, as limit-
ed by Section 10(b) of the Act, until such time as Re-
spondent Union properly refers them to employment in a
nondiscriminatory manner pursuant to the lawful oper-
ation of a referral system based on objective criteria or
standards, less net earnings during such period, backpay
and interest thereon to be computed in the manner set
forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
hiring hall records, dispatch lists, referral cards, and
other documents necessary to analyze and compute the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post in its main office and hiring hall in Hunting-
ton, West Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 22 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being
signed by the Respondent Union's authorized representa-
s If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
22 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
1129
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members or applicants for referral are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
1130