Boilermakers Local 667

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1153 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

BOILERMAKERS. LOCAL 667
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship-
builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local
667, AFL-CIO (Union Boiler Company) and Don-
ald W. Anderson and Ronald W. Kennedy. Cases 9-
CB-3732-1 and 9-CB-3732-2
June 13, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On January 4, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Almira A. Stevenson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions 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, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, Local 667, AFL-CIO, Charles-
ton, West Virginia, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.2
I in the Remedy section of her Decision. the Administrative Law Judge
states that Anderson and Kennedy should be made whole for any wages they
would have earned if they had been referred to field jobs "from November 2.
1977 (15 days after they registered on the out-of-work list) .... " This is
apparently a reference to the 15-day penalty imposed under the Joint Refer-
ral Rules where an employee has quit his job. Since the Administrative Law
Judge found that Respondent applies this 15-day penalty only to employees
who quit field jobs, there appears to be no basis for imposing such a penalty
on the employees in this case, one of whom quit a shop job and the other of
whom was laid off by a shop employer. Accordingly, we shall delete from the
Remedy section of the Decision any reference to November 2, 1977, or to a
15-day penalty.
2 Chairman Fanning agrees that Respondent breached the duty of fair
representation in violation of Sec. 8(b( IXA) by failing to publicize its rule of
delaying referrals to field jobs for employees who quit shop jobs, as the rule
had a substantial impact on employees' job opportunities. However. he
would not find that the rule constituted a violation of Sec. 8(b)(2) because, as
the Administrative Law Judge found, the rule was adopted for a legitimate
purpose: it represented a reasonable exercise of Respondent's discretion in
representing employees; and it was not arbitrarily applied. As a remedy for
the 8(bXl)(A) violation, Chairman Fanning would issue a cease-and-desist
order, and would adopt the affirmative backpay order recommended by the
Administrative Law Judge which applies to the Charging Parties the pub-
lished rules of referral to field jobs.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge:
A hearing was held in this consolidated proceeding at
Charleston, West Virginia, June 13, 1978. The charge in
Case 9-CB-3732-1 was filed by Donald Anderson and
served on the Respondent December 8, 1977; the charge in
Case 9-CB-3732-2 was filed by Ronald Kennedy and
served on the Respondent January 4, 1978. An order con-
solidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hear-
ing was issued January 31, 1978. The complaint was duly
answered by the Respondent.
The issues are whether or not the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to refer Anderson
and Kennedy from its exclusive hiring hall because they
quit or the Respondent believed they had quit their former
jobs. For the reasons set forth below I conclude that the
Respondent violated the Act as alleged.
1. JURISDICTION
Union Boiler Company is a West Virginia corporation
engaged in the manufacture, installation, and service of in-
dustrial boiler equipment. During the past 12 months it
purchased and received goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 at its Belle, West Virginia, facility directly
from points outside West Virginia. I find that Union Boiler
Company is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IIl. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts'
The Respondent is an amalgamated local union with ap-
proximately 1,150 members of whom about 850 are en-
gaged in field construction work and 300 in shop-fabrica-
tion work. There are several fabrication shops located in the
Respondent's jurisdiction and their employees are covered
by separate collective-bargaining agreements negotiated
with the individual employers, one of which is Southwest-
ern Engineering Company. These agreements contain no
exclusive hiring-hall provisions and the employers do thcir
own hiring. In practice, the) hire off the street employees
who have attended vocational school and have some basic
training in welding but none in fabrication. The current
contract wage is about $6.90 an hour.
All employee.; in boilermaker classifications engaged in
field construction, including those employed b Union
Except where specifically discussed, the facts are substantially undisput-
ed.
242 NLRB No. 167
1153
DI):(CISIONS OF: NA FIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boiler Company, are covered by the International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders. Blacksmiths.
Forgers and Helpers Ohio Valley Articles of Agreement.
The Agreement contains an exclusive hiring-hall arrange-
ment, and an $1 1.30 an hour wage rate plus fringe benefits
valued in excess of $3 an hour. tinder the Ohio Valley Ar-
ticles of Agreement, and the Joint Referral Rules provided
ftr in the agreement, the U nion maintains out-of-work lists
of boilermaker journeymen (who have either completed the
apprenticeship program or acquired 8,000 hours' working
experience before qualifying). apprentices. and trainees.
who must reconfirm availability every 14 days. The agree-
ment and rules provide that registrants shall he referred
from appropriate lists on a first-in first-out nondiscrimina-
tory basis, except that trainees are not to he referred until
all journeymen and apprentices have been placed. Under
the agreement. trainees are paid 75 percent of the journey-
man rate. The rules also provide, insofar as relevant here.
for a suspension from the list 15 days first offense 30 days
second offense, and thereafter I year for "quitting or leav-
ing an employer's job" and there is credible testimony that
this rule is fbllowed and applied by the Respondent to field
construction quits in operating its hiring hall.
Donald Anderson and Ronald Kennedy are both mem-
bers of the Respondent Union. and there is no contention
that they failed to pay dues and initiation fees required to
retain membership. They have been employed as welders,
fitters, and flame cutters by Southwestern Engineering
Company. When Southwestern's previous agreement with
the Respondent expired, on September 1, 1977, its employ-
ees struck until Tuesday, October 18. 1977, when they
voted to accept the new contract. During the strike. Ander-
son and Kennedy' were referred to field construction jobs by
the Respondent Union as trainees. The day the strike
ended, Southwestern laid Kennedy off for lack of work and
Anderson quit his employment with Southwestern. Both
men went immediately to the Union hall. where they re-
quested dispatcher Maynard May to place their names on
the out-of-work list, Anderson informing him he had quit
and Kennedy saying he had been laid off. May wrote their
names on a sheet of paper and said he would call if he had
anything for them.
Receiving no call. Anderson and Kennedy returned to
the Union hall the following Monday. October 24. May was
not there, so they spoke with Assistant Business Manager
Jim McC'ormick who was acting dispatcher. The employees
explained that Kennedy had been laid off and Anderson
had quit, and May had put their names on the out-of-:work
list. Business Manager Bill McCormick came into the hall
about that time and told the men that Kennedy would be
referred for a job as he had been laid off but McCormick
was going to put a stop to guys quilting the shops and going
to fieldwork and Anderson would not be referred because
he had quit a shop job.
Anderson telephoned the hall on a couple of occasions
after that and visited the hall once, about December 8.
1977. when May asked if Anderson had talked to Bill Mc-
Cormick Anderson replied he had not and did not wish to,
and May told him he could do nothing for him. Anderson
was finally referred to a field construction job b the Re-
spondent Union on January 30. 1978, after he filed the
charge in this proceeding.
Kennedy telephoned the hall once, and visited it several
times at least every 2 weeks. May never told him he would
not be referred but said he would he in touch when he had
a job for Kennedy.
Kennedy credibly testified that he returned to the hall on
November 28. when he observed dispatcher May referring
other employees out to jobs: he asked Mas why he was not
refCrred, and May responded. "that I'd messed up when I
quil Southwestern." Kennedy protested he had not quit and
May asked fr a layoff slip. Kennedy said he had left his
slip at the unemployment compensation office. but Ma
could call Southwestern and confirm his layof'. Mlay then
gave Kennedy a referral slip and sent him out to a job.2
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent Union refused to
refer Anderson and Kennedy to field construction jobs as
trainees because Anderson had quit, and Kennedy was be-
lieved to have quit, their shop jobs, and thereby prevented
them from obtaining jobs in field construction from Octo-
ber 18. 1977, until January 30. 1978. and November 28,
1977. respectively.
Business Manager Bill McCormick testified that the Re-
spondent was following a longstanding unwritten policy of
"not encouraging" shop employees to quit by refusing im-
mediately to refer out, or refusing to refer out for a reason-
able length of time, any employee who quit a job in a shop.
although McCormick could not define a reasonable length
of timrne. The reason for this policy. he explained, is that
shops cannot pay as high wages as field construction em-
ployers can pay and remain in business. So if employees are
allowed freely to leave the shops for the field, as all natu-
rally wish to do, the shops will have to close either from
inability to pay competitive wages to retain their employees
or because their employees leave them. and there will he no
more shop jobs availahble for the employees in the shop
units it represents.
Roger Magaw vice president and treasurer of Union
Boiler Company in charge of labor relations for that com-
pany and its wholly-owned division Putnam Fabricating
C(ompany. a shop employer, testified it takes a shop 4 years
to train an employee hired oilff the street in fabrication: that
he has been concerned for several elars about employees
using the shops as a training ground for field work and
losing his trained employees to the field: and that it was
I1 credit this teslimon b Kenned, whose nmenomrr was sharp and un-
equiocal . By contrast, May's memory was obhiousl} poor. and. unlike Ken-
nedy. he showed a tendency t;/ dissemble. Moreoer. May's testimony. that
Kennedy merely came into the office on his day, "and said he had not quit
hisjob down at Southwestern Engineering. he was onl' on layoflTdown there.
and he would like to go to work," implies ihat this was Kennedd)'s first isit
Ito the hall. whereas the undisputed idence is hat Kenned had pres iousl?
visited the hall several times, signed oult ol work lists. and h ad also tele-
phoned May about work. I do not theretore credit NMaS in this respect, nor
do I credit his tesimon that he had never beer under the impression that
Kennedy had quit or his denial that he had refused to refer Kennedy because
he thought Kennedy had quit. I have carelull considered the undisputed
ceidence that Kennedy had told May n October 18 a.id olther LUnion tffi-
cials ,n October 24 that he wa, laid ioff and that the Respondent made noi
aittemnpt to den ir oincceal its treatment oI Anderson based in his having
quit. However I consider these factors outweighed by the lctolrs heretofore
recited and the absence ot an e plalntion as iti h,s it Ma) had not some-
how gt the idea that Kennedy had quit. Kennedy was not given a relerral
1or period i 6 reeks lit cmicededl tfull eplosrieinl in the industry
1154
B()II.ERRMAKI-RS. I.()(AI. hh7
apparent shen the current Ohio \Valle Articles of Agree-
ment were negotilated in 1976 that there would he an ex-
tended period of' expanded oh opportunitics in ield cn-
struction. To preent draining the shops of emnploees bh
making field construction less attractise to them,. a clause
was agreed to imposing a requirement of 8.0(X) houlrs' work-
lng experience for a trainee to he eligible ltor ada ;ncement
to journeyllan, and a 75 percent paN rate for trainee on ia
field construction job. lowever. no concern \was expressed.
he said. that the Itnion should not refer the shop quits to
field construction jobs. and the Union did not inforim the
emploNer negotiators of anN such polic.'
B. ( 'ontl is
The Respondent acknowledges its statulorN duIt fairlN to
represent the shop temploxees under the Mr1o1h(o doctrine.
It denies, however. that it ftiled its dut) in this respect.
The Gieneral ('Counsel does not contend, aind I agree. thai
the Respondent cannot lawfullN enforce referral rules de-
signed to discourage the emploNees it represents from quit-
ting their johs with the obvious ohbjecti e o'f assuring i
steadN and dependable suppl 3 of' labor to the emplo ers
with which it has collective bargaining agreenients. \Ve arce
also in aigrement, I belie'e. that the referral rules spelling
out the 15-daN. 30-daN. -'ear penalties tor quitting tieldl-
construction jobs are a reasonable and lair method ol
achieviing this purpose.
It is also plain that the Respondent cannot have dillerent
referral rules fl'r shop and field constructiotn eniplo\ees or
no reason or 'for an impermissible reason.) For the purpose
of preventing a drain of the shops' labor supply in lfaxor of
construction therehb preventing tile closing of shops alln
loss of unit jobs,. the Respondent had a legitimate reason lot
adopting and enforcing a different and more stringent refel'r-
ral rule for quitting shop jobs than l'r quittling field coln-
'he (General (',ounel contends that the shop-quit rule s an ex pt.. ,, I,,
rule put into effecl IEter Anderson and Kenned. had quit. Althlough sot11e
circumstances surrounding the rule il had nt been posted. published. or
proposed For incorporation in the collective bargaining agreenmen: ahbsence
of eidence it had been applied before these eents: t'nuin members ere
vague about its existence) are suspicious. I do nol beliee these circum-
sltances in he absence iof evidence that he rule hd never been preolusl
invoked. or that I nion officiall harbored an, hsilliI lIoward A nderson and
Kcnned . juslit} a indling cintrar? t( the direct testlMnll\ ot tlillless Mali-
ager ill Mc('Cormick
he (eneral ('Counsel also contelends that the Respondent arbilraril? iple-
mented the rule algainst ndersotnil ald Kellned although it hd not eCn-
torced t againsl another member. imnoth Ilmore, when lie alegedil 5 q uit
his job at Southwestern 1gineering durinLg a wildcat strike in Ma;rch 1977
thllweser. Ilniore adilited that inanagetnlt otfical.l told hin .nd oither
strikers Ihat the strike was a siolation of contract. and it Ithe did inot ge
back to work thes would be tired. In these clrcumstances. I credit usiless
Manager Mc('ormlick that I more as, considered lired bec.aulse he hadll re-
Iused tIo return I t.,o rk alter being told he wold he discharged it he did notl
I ind that the Rel.ondenl had a legitil;ate reasonll tlr tl applxlug Ile shop-
quit rule to tlImre anid that Anderson and Kennied s ere nt treate n a
disparate nlanner from lnire b the arbitr;ar. inlplenlemnlatk ofi the rle
agaillsl theill See ('hi, ii, /''d'riol ! Fcutiutu, t i .o l if I. .tlt'rl lean I'd
criiiol , i.tl.a . S'lh h RadA 7& I Pr-di , /a l. I, st N I RB 68
t4 (196h)
4 iri1 ndli,,1 t. (tipl/nl . i, I 40 N I R I I 12 } eliirceniient denied
326 2d 1 72 12d (it 1963
' See (; i ruil 7r, A lri I rlrh,),ll R ltl l, o .h Ir , i . d -t l /...ili I it
[ V¢, i i( e I , s Itl a r ..lil ltI/ Brutrl l ,rh,,,, d t i i ll clcr. ( h l,i,/i',r. It i ,rt
howirenl iil o'r it tor I (Jl RhJdIi a /.,'. Il. 21 N1 I R I 1ti,
t18 197si
structlion obs. Although one might questioll the isdoim oft
uLsiig a more ses ere quit penalIt (in a idd tio to the 8.0X)-
httur experience requirelent to qUlualit' fr journeN Itan and
the 7 percen t paN rate ior trainees which are incorporated
in the Agreenietit and not challenged here) to achiese this
objectis'e. I do not believe it can he conidcered on the hbasis
of intOrniation available. unreasonalale.
Ne ertieless I must conclude that the refetrral rule, ai
applied to Anderson and Kenned. does not contorinl ith
the stalidard of tairiess required itt their stitutorN hbargain-
nig representatie. Ilhe ault i thal unlike the clear, defiite
rules applicable to field construction quits hicli are pre-
cisel- spelled ut in lhce collectis e barga;ining agreement
avalilable to all, the rule applicable to hop quits is vague
and indetinite ad nosuhere aailable. Thus. a conistruction
worker is in a position to klnoss the exact ltinmber of' das
and under uhiat specific circumstances e svill non he re-
lierred to a nesw job i he quits, ad can make a reasotned
decision based on that knowledge. A slhop elploeCC haTs ito
definite inftoriiation upon which to bahse sLIucI i decision.
Ihat he A ill not he re'erred out t a field Jloh illediittefl
or ill not bhe elerred or a reastonable length of ti tme tells
hill little i ain! thing. WAh;at it realli mean Is Ithit his reter-
rial is at thie hiltt of his I nill olfficers uho might opl1 lr i
short or long delax in reterrinig him. or nieser to refer him at
all. ihus. there i no aN, of' knocing hetn, if e er, the
Respondeni t uould ha-e i en Kenned! :a referral had Ihe
not corrected \Ia !'s mistaken impression that he had qit
ir given Aniderson a relerrall if he had not filed the chiarlge
inl this proceedling. I mploNees have a tatutior\ right to de-
malnd better treatlmlent tha;n this from their exclusi e bar-
gaining representi;tive.
I coiclude thereiore that bh retulS ig ito reifer Anderson
anid Keinneed to field constructitn jobs frolrl ()ctober I1.
1977, ultil JiInuit; 31. 1978, amid Ni e nber 28. 1977. re-
specti el%, the Respirondctt tlailed tairlx to represent them in
violationi of Section Sih(lH)( A I t ani discrimiinated agaillst
them i s itolatiun ot Sectioin 8(h)(2) of the Act.'
1 . RIt \11 )
lasing loIunld that the Respondelit non has engaged in
unfair labor practices. I shall reclomllendl that it he ordered
I .,, r ()lr,, illiJ i [ )l rtle (O ,tlil l/ (; 'lrtr L %[nillthi I ,r ~1/ \ ,
)80a /( oif ttlmir, Il ( -iirl,, llg ( 21r[lorllltl N R It s82 t 1 973i. i;,1
i hrr ( s/ firt , tdl/ios// .>/' / Ris I/,lio 1pI ,ti/ ( //,I , 1 ,' , t lhzc
Iu.t Iith , r[ n wi,ntl B-r lihrh, 1,rI, l , i / 7 W r. ( hallelcilr Iit ;Jr 1l il, 1 la II1
Il'pcr ,,i iiri a< "ClI.u ('itri lltoii ( 1. Ins , 19I N R '4 I I
( 'il /ao u / [[,tr l)t //t /l, i l , -tdii IdS1l I Irs/u , I, ! ttlol/ Illlf7i
(Sh,l d l Rldo I I Prolit 11 , .[mL lt lI
(;i'io 'r,/ rl t i)rl 'r c /i,,i'l, i,,' ,t Ilpi'r, - / i t ,luf ..til ,, I tI*li
.
I'l%. IX o~tl [ ... l h'rtlllf lt~tll J I .,J , d t ]i 'tltl l~!rt, ( All tt i' ltarc
h ,icc,i i, , / I/ n lt r ,! 4,tIrla I Rh,,,/ t/ .1,Ii",,iil, / 1, ,. I S ir ll In sle,
it the Respiondeint's Ulitair reatlent ,1 It, nieiher. I tld tht ii 0I.ld
hae een lutile tIo indersorl to reaffiri h a.lahilih xer\ 14 is as
requirel h,, the .lit Relerrd Rules i te Reponrdent hial to ititeiriton oi
relerril/i hill .In1 \.i \1irecie r I ind I l Terit 11 th R lsi.lleni ', further
cclleiltilon t} tie ctlct I li te ftralt,.il J.ttrtitc is iot ipplic.ihle to the
Opil hnr it .l 1 c tJ i Mlc Il 11II,]1 1 11 I 1 (.Jlc ,fltrLItllOU 1111(111s11 hIICIC .I
t'.ic. 1n11,lillot st it J tI I' t h [. ht. 'c lqk'I.arl [ " t. 11 [iil d Iw rel-
esloice Ii 1)u, ( , /1,/r ( , ..tll' /' / , , t,,,i i/ ,h!Cr , r . , i, ,'r -u , r
O)aiml -A,,h I h,,i (scriln lil, 21'2 R 421 197 i \ / R x
I 4q l 1 t Pr1 r I J j? I ,tl If,! th , tI, I II I I h /, h I t [I ~l' k III B Illl . /tI I, I t tI
{( ,'tl1l1111t'.dl
I I55
DECISIONS OF NA IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of' the Act. I rec-
ommend that the Respondent make whole Donald Ander-
son and Ronald Kennedy fr any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of its violation of its duty to repre-
sent them fairly. by payment of sums of money equal to
what they normally would have earned as wages had they
been referred out to field construction jobs as trainees from
November 2. 1977. (15 days after they registered on the out-
of-work list) to January 30. 1978, and November 28. 1977.
respectively, the dates they received referrals, less their net
earnings during those periods. Backpay shall be computed
in the manner set forth in F W. Woolwvorlh Comparn'. 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provided in Ilorida Steel
Corporatlion 231 NLRB 651 (1977). and Isis Plumbing and
Heatring Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby' issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 9
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers. Iron Shipbuilders. Blacksmiths, Forgers and Hlelp-
ers, Local 667, AFL-CIO, Belle, West Virginia, its officers.
agents. and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act or discriminating
against them by failing to represent them in a fair and im-
partial manner.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Donald W. Anderson and Ronald W.
Kennedy for any loss of wages they may have suffered as a
result of the Respondent's failure to accord them the fair
mental Iron 1I'orers .4 FL ('10 (Higdon Contracring (Co). 985 S.('T 651}
(1978) (97 LRRM 2333)., dealing with the relationship between Sec. 8).
8(a)(51, ad 8(h)(7) to the Respondent's duty under Sec. 8(bhll A) and 2)
to accord the employees it represents fair and impartial treatment.
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 ot the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Boaid. 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 he deemed
waived for all purposes.
and impartial representation to which they were entitled, in
the manner set forth in the Remedy section of this Decision.
(h) Post at its business offices and hiring hall copies of
the attached notice.' Copies of said notice on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 9. after being
duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof and be maintained b it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to to employees and members are customar-
ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced. or
covered by an) other material.
(c) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 9
sufficient copies of said notice, on forms provided b him,
for posting at the premises of Southwestern Engineering
Company if the latter is willing.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of' this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment ot a I nited SI aes
Courl of Appeals. the , ords in the notice reading "Posted by order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the LUnited States C(ourt of Appeals enl;rcing an order o, the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
No(l( F. To 11 MiMBERS
PoSl l) BY OR)DER ()f1 li
N II(INAI. LAH()R RI.AIIONS BoARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Wt: II.L N()I restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act as amended, or discrimi-
nate against them. b, failing to represent them in a fair
and impartial manner.
WE it. N in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
Wti wliii. make whole Donald W. Anderson and
Ronald W. Kennedy for any loss of' wages they may
have suffered as a result of our failure to accord them
the fair and impartial representation to which they
were entitled, with interest.
INIERNAIIONAl. BROIIIERtt()OI) o Bl.IRMAK-
ERS. IRON SHIPBUIIDI)ERS BLA(KSMI tS, Fo()RGRS
ANt) H.PEIRS. Lo(tm. 667. AFL CIO
I 1156