Convention & Show Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 27, 2007

07-CB-015293 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 27, 2007)

JD–80–07
Detroit, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
LOCAL 687, MICHIGAN REGIONAL
COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
(CONVENTION & SHOW SERVICES, INC.)
and Case No. 7-CB-15293
MICHAEL JOHNSTON, An Individual
Judith A. Champa, Esq.
for the General Counsel,
Jeffrey D. Wilson, Esq., and
Dennis M. Devaney, Esq.
(Strobl & Sharp, P.C.)
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and
Nicholas R. Nahat, Esq.
(Novara Tesija & McGuire, P.L.L.C.)
Southfield, Michigan,
for Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
PAUL BOGAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit, Michigan, on
October 22, 2007. Michael Johnston, an individual, filed the original charge on August 9, 2006,
and an amended charge on September 28, 2006. The Regional Director of Region 7 of the
National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued the complaint and notice of hearing on
February 9, 2007. The complaint alleges that Local 687, Michigan Regional Council of
Carpenters (the Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act) in the operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall by maintaining written referral
procedures that discriminate against members who refrain from engaging in Respondent-
sponsored picketing and other protected activity. The Respondent filed a timely answer in
which it denied having committed any of the violations alleged in the complaint.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Convention & Show Services, Inc., a corporation, is an exposition contractor with a place
of business in Detroit, Michigan. It annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchases and receives at its Michigan facility, goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Michigan. The Respondent admits, and I find, that
Convention & Show Services is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent admits and I find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Respondent’s Referral Procedures
The Respondent is a labor organization with an office and place of business in Detroit,
Michigan. It operates a hiring hall from which it refers out-of-work members to contracting
employers, including Convention & Show Services, Inc. The contracts between the Respondent
and those employers provide that the Respondent is a nonexclusive source of referrals –
meaning that the Respondent’s members may seek jobs with, and potentially be hired by, any
employer without being referred by the Respondent. The Respondent, and its membership,
acted in 1996 and again in April 2007, to ratify and maintain written procedures that govern
these referrals. Under those procedures, an out-of-work member who wants to be referred by
the Respondent registers by completing and submitting a card. The Respondent numbers
those cards consecutively, in the order they are received, and places them in the “out-of-work
box.” When an employer asks the Respondent to refer an individual or individuals, the
Respondent will generally begin by offering the referral to the qualified individual with the lowest
number in the out-of-work box, and then will proceed to the qualified individual with the next
lowest number, and so on, until the number of workers requested by the employer has been
reached. Members who work a specified number of hours after submitting a card are no longer
considered to be out-of-work and their cards are removed from the box. If such individuals want
to be referred in the future, they must re-register and obtain a new out-of-work number.
The written referral procedures create a few significant exceptions to the general
procedure of offering referrals to qualified members in the order that their cards entered the out-
of-work box. The complaint alleges that two of the exceptions are unlawful. The challenged
exceptions modify the consecutive referral procedures based on a member’s participation in, or
refusal to participate in, Respondent-sponsored picketing and other protected activity. Those
exceptions state as follows:
Paragraph 4(c). Refusal to participate in organized activities such as picketing,
hand billing, etc. will also qualify for removal [from the out-of-work box].
Paragraph 7. Except for referrals under agreements which establish that the
Local Union is to be the exclusive source of employment, the out-of-work box
shall be used to call individuals for picket duty and individuals who are serving as
pickets shall be granted first preference on referrals to available employment in
the order that they are in the out-of-work box.
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
The Respondent maintained and enforced paragraph 7 starting no later than February 9, 2006.
On about March 1, 2007, after the complaint in this case issued, the Respondent ceased
enforcement of paragraph 7. The Respondent has not enforced the other challenged provision
-- paragraph 4(c) -- for at least the past 5 years, and the record does not show that that
paragraph was ever enforced. However, the Respondent has not removed either of the
challenged provisions from the written procedures. In the past, copies of the written
procedures were posted at the referral hall and those written procedures are currently available
in the Detroit office of the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters (MRCC), the Respondent’s
governing body.1 There are 10 other locals operating under the auspices of the MRCC, and all
of those locals have ratified the referral procedures.
For over 5 years, Nick McCreary, an agent of the Respondent,2 has been the person
with responsibility for operating the Respondent’s out-of-work referral system. McCreary, the
only witness in this case, credibly testified about the operation of that system. He stated that,
on average, there are about 500 individuals with cards in the out-of-work box,3 of whom about
100 are picketers. The cards of members who engage in Respondent-sponsored picketing are
moved to the front of the out-of-work box. When an employer asks the Respondent to refer
potential employees, McCreary begins by offering the referrals to qualified picketers with cards
in the out-of-work box, without regard to whether there is a qualified non-picketer who has been
out-of-work longer and holds the next referral number.4 The Respondent only extends referral
offers to the non-picketers if there are not enough qualified picketers to satisfy the employer’s
request. In most cases, all of the persons referred by the Respondent are picketers. According
to McCreary, approximately 80 to 85 percent of the time the Respondent finds enough persons
to refer from among the qualified picketers and does not reach the non-picketers with cards in
the out-of-work box. Although paragraph 7 of the referral procedure states that picketing
employees “shall be granted first preference on referrals to available employment in the order
that they are in the out-of-work box,” McCreary testified that, in practice, the Respondent refers
individuals who have been engaging in a great deal of picketing over picketers who would have
priority based on their referral numbers, but who have not picketed as much. Once a picketer
obtains work using the picketing preference, the preference is extinguished, and the next time
the individual seeks a job referral, he or she must engage in picketing again in order to obtain a
preference. During McCreary’s tenure operating the referral system he has never exhausted
the cards in the out-of-work box, meaning that there have always been more members waiting
for referrals than there have been available referrals.

1 Other, unchallenged, portions of the referral rules provide that the Respondent may offer
referrals without regard to numerical order when placing a union steward or when an employer
makes a written request for a particular individual. There was also testimony that some
employers supply the Respondent with “do not hire lists,” and that the Respondent will not refer
an individual to an employer who has placed that individual on such a list, regardless of whether
that individual is the next qualified member in the out-of-work box.
2 In the answer to the complaint, the Respondent admitted that McCreary was its agent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
3 McCreary testified that the number varies over time. At the time of trial, the number of
cards in the out-of-work box had swelled to about 700, but at other times the number of cards
has dropped to as low as 200.
4 McCreary makes these offers by phone. Approximately 70 percent of the time that he
calls someone to offer a referral, that individual is not present and does not return the call in
time to obtain the referral. This failed-contact rate is the same for picketers and non-picketers.
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Contracting employers have the right to refuse employment to persons referred by the
Respondent. However, approximately 90 percent of the time the employers hire the referred
individuals and retain them for the full term of the project. Even when a contracting employer
refuses employment to a referred individual, that employer is required to pay the rejected
individual for 2 hours work.
B. The Complaint
The complaint alleges that, since about February 9, 2006, the Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall by maintaining
written employment referral procedures that grant priority to its members who engage in
Respondent-sponsored picketing, and withhold referrals from its members who refuse to
engage in such picketing, for the purpose of encouraging members to engage in protected
activities on behalf of the Respondent and to discourage members from exercising their Section
7 right to refrain from engaging in such activities.
III. Analysis and Discussion
The Board has held that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the operation of
a nonexclusive hiring hall when it discriminatorily denies referrals to members because those
members have engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. Carpenters Local 370
(Eastern Contractors Assn.), 332 NLRB 174 (2000); Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City &
Suburban Delivery), 332 NLRB 870, 870 fn.1 (2000); Carpenters Local 626 (Strawbridge &
Clothier), 310 NLRB 500, 500 fn. 2 (1993), enfd. 16 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 1993) (Table); Laborers
Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB 777, 780 (1984), enfd. 782 F.2d 1030 (3d Cir. 1986)
(Table). Such discrimination is unlawfully coercive in the context of nonexclusive hiring halls,
despite the fact that the coercion is greater when the discriminating union is party to an
exclusive hiring arrangement. Chauffeur’s Union Local 923, Teamsters (Yellow Cab Co.), 172
NLRB 2137, 2138 (1968). 5 The protections provided by Section 7 extend not only to a
member’s decision to participate in union activities, but also to a member’s decision to refrain
from union activities, including union-sponsored picketing. Service Employees District 1199
(Staten Island University Hospital), 339 NLRB 1059, 1060-61 (2003); District 65, Distributive
Workers (Blume Associates, Inc.) 214 NLRB 1059 (1974); see also Service Employees Local
87 (Able Building Maintenance Co.), 349 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 5 (2007) (“An essential
element of any violation of Section 8(b)(1) is restraint or coercion in the exercise of a Section 7
right; i.e., the right to form, join, or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from such activity.”).

5 The Respondent cites Teamsters Local 460 (Superior Asphalt), 300 NLRB 441 (1990), for
the proposition that “absent an exclusive hiring hall arrangement, a union’s failure to operate its
hiring hall in accordance with objective criteria is not a violation of the Act” since “a union
operating a nonexclusive hiring procedure lacks the power to put jobs out of the reach of
workers.” Respondent’s Brief at 6. Although in that case the Board held that a union has no
duty of fair representation in the nonexclusive hiring hall setting, the Board explicitly stated that
discrimination in referrals at a nonexclusive hall is still a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). 300
NLRB at 441 fn.1 (A union operating a nonexclusive hiring hall violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when
it “denies a member a referral in retaliation for the employees’ participation in protected
activity.”); see also Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City & Suburban Delivery), 332 NLRB at 870
fn.1 (even though union has no duty of fair representation in the operation of a nonexclusive
referral system, the union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it refuses to refer individuals in
retaliation for their protected activity ).
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
The record establishes that the Respondent ratified and maintained written procedures
stating that individuals who refuse to engage “in organized activities such as picketing, hand
billing, etc.,” qualify for removal from consideration for job referrals and that individuals who do
participate in Respondent-sponsored picketing will be granted first preference for receiving job
referrals. For a number of years, the Respondent gave effect to the preference for picketers,
and only ceased to do so after the Board issued the complaint in this case. The challenged job
referral procedures explicitly discriminate against members who exercise their Section 7 rights
to refrain from Respondent-sponsored picketing, and therefore those procedures violate Section
8(b)(1)(A).
The Respondent offers a number of arguments for why this discrimination based on
participation in picketing activity should not be considered a violation of the Act. First, it argues
that the cases holding that discrimination in referrals from nonexclusive hiring halls violate the
Act are inapplicable here because those cases involve discrimination against a particular
dissident union member, whereas this case involves the grant of a preference to a group of
individuals. According to the Respondent, the first of those situations is of a “completely
different character” from the second. The Respondent contends that absent discrimination
targeting a particular individual, the manner of referral by unions has not been regulated by the
Board in the context of nonexclusive hiring halls. Respondent’s Brief at 6-7. The Respondent
has not shown that this distinction is recognized by the Board or the Courts and, in my view, the
distinction is not a meaningful one. By referring picketers who would not have received the
referrals except for the preference, the Respondent is denying referrals to qualified non-
picketers who have been waiting longer and thus possess lower referral numbers. To put it
another way, when the Respondent is parceling out a limited number of job referrals to a larger
number of members, it cannot reward some for engaging in picketing activity without punishing
others for exercising their Section 7 rights to refrain from such activity. Indeed, the evidence
showed that the Respondent’s preference for picketers has meant that the first 80 to 85 percent
of referrals go to qualified picketers without any of the non-picketing members even being
considered. This is true despite the fact that the picketers comprise only about 20 percent of
the members awaiting referral. Obviously a referral procedure that has the effect of reserving
the first 80 to 85 percent of job referrals for picketers will tend to coerce members’ decisions
about whether to engage in picketing. The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a
union’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall regardless of whether one
casts the Respondent’s subjective motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-
picketers. See Service Employees Local 1107 (Sunrise Hospital), 347 NLRB No. 6, slip op. at 3
(2006) citing Boilermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983) (Where a
union interferes with a member’s Section 7 right to refrain from union activity, Section 8(b)(1)(A)
does not require a showing of motivation or intent to establish a violation.).
I reject the Respondent’s suggestion that discrimination in referrals at a nonexclusive
hiring hall is only unlawful when it targets a specific individual, not a group of individuals. The
Respondent provides no authority to support this proposition, and I am not surprised. A union’s
discrimination based on members’ exercise of their Section 7 rights is not made any more
palatable by the fact that it punishes a large number of members, rather than a select few.
Moreover, the condemnation of such discrimination in the distribution of job opportunities has
not been limited to instances when the Section 7 activity involved a member’s intra-union
dissidence or political activity, but rather has extended to circumstances in which the refusal to
refer is based on legitimate union interests. See, e.g., Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City &
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Suburban Delivery), 332 NLRB at 870 fn.1 and 876 (assuming referral system is nonexclusive,
union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) by refusing to recommend members for employment because
those members refrained from participation in a strike).6
The Respondent argues that one of the two referral provisions at issue – paragraph 4(c)
-- can be interpreted to apply to activities not covered by Section 7 and, in any case, has not
been enforced. As set forth above, paragraph 4(c) states that an individual qualifies for removal
from the out-of-work referral system if he or she “refus[es] to participate in organized activities
such as picketing, hand billing, etc.” The Respondent contends that this provision can apply to
Respondent-organized activities, such as charitable events, which do not implicate Section 7
rights. Even assuming that the provision can be interpreted to reach some unprotected activity,
that would not change the fact that it explicitly reaches other activity, such as refusal to
participate in picketing, which is undoubtedly protected by Section 7. Such coercion is unlawful
regardless of whether the provision also has lawful applications. The Respondent’s defense
that it did not enforce paragraph 4(c), is also not viable. The mere existence of a rule that
improperly discriminates on the basis of a member’s protected activity has a chilling effect on
the exercise of Section 7 rights, and violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) regardless of whether the
provision has ever been enforced. Awrey Bakeries, 335 NLRB 138, 139-40 (2001), enfd. 59
Fed. Appx. 690 (6th Cir. 2003); Engineers & Scientists Guild (Lockheed-California), 268 NLRB
311 (1983).
In its brief, the Respondent also contends that the challenged referral policies were
implemented by the MRCC, and applied by MRCC business representative McCreary, not by
the Respondent (identified in the complaint as “Local 687, MRCC”). Accordingly, it argues, no
violation by the Respondent has been established. I conclude that this defense is precluded by
the answer to the complaint, in which the Respondent admitted that it “maintained” the
challenged referral procedures in “the operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall”, and that
McCreary was its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. The Respondent never
moved to amend its answer in either of those two respects. Moreover, the evidence showed
that, in fact, the Respondent acted to accept and maintain the unlawful referral rules on two
occasions, most recently in April 2007. Thus, whatever the involvement of the MRCC as a
discrete entity, the Respondent itself adopted and maintained the unlawful referral procedures
that its agent, McCreary, enforced at its hiring hall.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Since February 9, 2006, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the
operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall by maintaining written referral procedures that
discriminate against members who refrain from engaging in Respondent-sponsored picketing
and other protected activities.

6 As the General Counsel recognizes, in the context of “conduct that the union can regulate
internally in furtherance of legitimate union interests” discrimination may be permissible if it does
not “affect[ ] members’ employment opportunities based on Section 7 considerations.” General
Counsel’s Brief at 14. The Respondent’s discrimination in the distribution of employment
referrals, however, affects members’ employment opportunities.
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Remedy
Much of the briefing in this case concerns the question of whether make whole relief –
and in particular backpay -- is an appropriate remedy. The complaint seeks the conventional
make whole remedy, but the Respondent contends that such a remedy is not available. First,
the Respondent argues that backpay may not be awarded because the general counsel only
alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), not Section 8(b)(2). This argument is contrary to
controlling Board precedent, which holds that backpay is an appropriate remedy for violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A). Development Consultants, 300 NLRB 479, 480 (1990); Laborers Local 135
(Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB at 780.7 Similarly, the Respondent argues that make whole relief is
not available given that the hiring hall was nonexclusive and therefore the discriminatory
preference in referrals did not mean that members were “prohibited from going directly to the
contractors themselves.” This argument is precluded by Board decisions stating that backpay is
the proper remedy when a union unlawfully denies members referrals based on discriminatory
reasons, even if the hiring hall is nonexclusive. Id. The opportunities that discriminatees had to
find employment without the assistance of the Respondent may be addressed when interim
earnings and mitigation efforts are considered in a compliance proceeding.
The Respondent also contends that an award of make-whole relief would be improper
because the General Counsel “did not present any evidence that members were passed over
for a referral,” and a make whole remedy would be “purely speculative.” Respondent’s Brief at
9. This contention is contrary to the facts. McCreary’s testimony made clear that the unlawful
preference for picketers meant that he passed over qualified members who had been registered
in the out-of-work system longer, and had lower referral numbers, in order to grant priority to
qualified picketers. The evidence showed that, given the unlawful preference for picketers, the
Respondent awarded the first 80 to 85 percent of job referrals to picketers without even
considering a single non-picketer. This was true despite the fact that the picketers were a
minority – only 20 percent -- of the members awaiting referrals. Thus the nexus between the
unlawful preference and the denial of job referrals to non-picketers is anything but speculative.
It is true that the record does not identify specific non-picketers to whom the referrals were
discriminatorily denied. However, the Board has held that in cases involving a union’s unlawful
failure to refer members it is appropriate to defer to compliance the question of who is in the
class of victims. Electrical Workers Local 48 (Oregon-Columbia Chapter of NECA), 342 NLRB
101, 109 (2004); Electrical Workers Local 724 (Albany Electrical Contractors Assn.), 327 NLRB
730 (1999); Electrical Workers IBEW Local 6 (San Francisco Electrical Contractors), 318 NLRB
109, 142-43 (1995), enfd. 139 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 1998) (Table).
The Respondent also argues that an order for make whole relief would be unduly
speculative because contracting employers were not required to hire the persons who the
Respondent referred. This argument is specious. The contracting employers were required to

7 The Respondent suggests that the General Counsel is improperly attempting an “end run
around” the established proof requirements by alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), rather
than Section 8(b)(2). Respondent’s Brief at 9. However, the Board has stated that Section
8(b)(1)(A) – not Section 8(b)(2) -- is the appropriate provision for consideration of allegations of
union discrimination in the operation of a hiring hall where, as here, the hiring hall is
nonexclusive. Carpenters Local 626, 310 NLRB at 500; Development Consultants, 300 NLRB
at 480. A union violates Section 8(b)(2) when it discriminates in the operation of an exclusive
hiring hall or when it causes an employer to discriminate against employees. Id. Thus the
General Counsel and the complaint invoke the appropriate provision.
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
pay each referred member for a minimum of 2 hours work, regardless of whether the employer
chose to hire that individual or not. Thus non-picketers who were discriminatorily denied
referrals lost, at a minimum, the 2 hours pay that would have been guaranteed to them had they
been referred by the Respondent. Moreover, since the contracting employers hired 90 percent
of those referred by the Respondent, the losses suffered by persons who were discriminatorily
denied referrals was generally much greater than the 2-hour minimum. Given the evidence
presented in this case, I conclude that the Respondent’s contention that the loss of earnings
resulting from the discrimination was unduly speculative is without merit.
The Respondent relies on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sure-Tan,
467 U.S. 883 (1983), to support its argument that the Board’s conventional make-whole remedy
is too speculative in this case. That reliance is misplaced. The remedy that was invalidated in
Sure-Tan set a minimum backpay entitlement in lieu of the calculation of discriminatees’ actual
losses. The General Counsel is not seeking such an remedy here, but rather requests the
conventional remedy under which backpay will only be provided for actual losses that are
calculated in a subsequent compliance proceeding. In Sure-Tan, the Court not only did not
preclude the conventional remedy as too speculative, but explicitly approved of it. 467 U.S. at
902 (“We generally approve . . . the conventional remedy of reinstatement with backpay, leaving
until the compliance proceedings more specific calculation as to the amounts of backpay, if any,
due these employees.”). The Respondent’s citation to the Board’s decision in Page Litho, 313
NLRB 960 (1994) is similarly unpersuasive. In that case, the respondent was an employer that
violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally ceasing to provide a union with notification of job
openings. The General Counsel sought backpay and the Board denied the request based on
the absence of discrimination, the nonexclusive nature of the hiring arrangement, and the fact
that the employer was not required to hire individuals referred by the union. The Board explicitly
distinguished cases, such as the instant one, in which backpay is appropriate because a union
discriminated in the operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall. Id. at 962, discussing Development
Consultants, supra. In the instant case, not only was the denial of referrals discriminatory, but
when a discriminatee was denied such a referral he or she lost at least the guaranteed minimum
2 hours pay. Thus the decisions, such as Development Consultants, 300 NLRB at 480, and
Laborers Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB at 780, which provide that backpay is an
appropriate remedy for a union’s unlawful discrimination in the operation of a nonexclusive
hiring hall, are controlling here, not Page Litho.
The General Counsel urges that the Board’s “current practice of awarding only simple
interest on backpay and other monetary awards be replaced with the practice of compounding
interest.” General Counsel’s Brief at 24. The Board has considered, and rejected, this
argument for a change in its practice. See Rogers Corp., 344 NLRB 504 (2005), citing
Commercial Erectors, Inc., 342 NLRB 940 fn. 1 (2004) and Accurate Wire Harness, 335 NLRB
1096 fn.1 (2001), enfd. 86 Fed. Appx. 815 (6th Cir. 2003). If the General Counsel’s argument
in favor of compounding interest has merits, those merits are for the Board to consider, not me.
I am bound to follow Board precedent on the subject. See Hebert Industrial Insulation Corp.,
312 NLRB 602, 608 (1993). Lumber & Mill Employers Assn., 265 NLRB 199 fn. 2 (1982), enfd.
736 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 934 (1984); Los Angeles New Hospital, 244
NLRB 960, 962 fn. 4 (1979), enfd. 640 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981).
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act as alleged in the complaint, I find that
it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that paragraphs 4(c) and 7 of the Respondent’s
written out-of-work referral procedures unlawfully discriminate against members on the basis of
their Section 7 activity, those paragraphs must be rescinded and stricken from the Respondent’s
written referral procedures. The Respondent must also refrain from maintaining or enforcing
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
those provisions or in any other way considering a member’s participation in picketing activity
sponsored by the Respondent when distributing job referrals to members. The Respondent,
having discriminatorily denied job referrals to members, must make all discriminatees whole for
any resulting loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis, less any net
interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended Order. 8
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 687, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining, enforcing, and/or giving effect to written job referral procedures that
grant priority or preference to members who engage in picketing that is sponsored or sanctioned
by the Respondent, and which withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in
picketing and other protected activity.
(b) Giving any consideration to members’ participation in, or failure to participate in,
Respondent-sponsored or sanctioned picketing when offering job referrals to members.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind, and strike from its written job referral procedures, the provisions that grant
priority job referrals to members who engage in picketing sponsored or sanctioned by the
Respondent, and which withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in picketing and
other protected activity.
(b) Make whole members for any loss of earnings and benefits they may have suffered,
as a result of the Respondent’s discrimination against them since February 9, 2006, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this Decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all hiring hall records, all documentation regarding the Respondent’s referral
of members for employment, all documentation regarding compensation and employment

8 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 purposes.
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
obtained by members, all documents reporting or recording the participation of members in
Respondent-sponsored picketing, all referral cards, and any other documents, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to identify those who
suffered loss of employment because of the violations found herein and/or to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office and hiring hall in
Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 27, 2007
____________________
PAUL BOGAS
Administrative Law Judge

9 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in
the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONSL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD–80–07
Detroit, MI
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 Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or give effect to job referral procedures that give priority or
preference to members who engage in picketing that we sponsor or sanction, and which
withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in picketing and other protected activity.
WE WILL NOT give any consideration to whether you have participated in, or refrained from
participation in, picketing that we sponsored or sanctioned when offering job referrals to
members.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind, and strike from our written job referral procedures, provisions that grant
priority job referrals to members who engage in picketing that we sponsor or sanction, and
which withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in picketing and other protected
activity.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of earnings and benefits that you may have suffered as
a result of our discrimination since February 9, 2006, with interest.
Local 687, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD–80–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
477 Michigan Avenue, Federal Building, Room 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2569
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
313-226-3200.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 313-226-3244.