Furnco Construction Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 93 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

FURNCO CONSTRUCTION CORP.
Furnco Construction Corporation and Emmett
Rogeirs and Clarence Frazier
Local 4 1, Laborers International Union of North
America and Emmett Rogers and Clarence
Frazier. Cases 13-CA-8222, 13-CA-8277,
13-C13-2383, and 13-CB-2419
January 13, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On August 26, 1968, Trial Examiner John F.
Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending dismissal of the
complaint in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel[ filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision together with a supporting brief, and
Respondent Union filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, and orders that the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner- Upon a charge and
an amended charge in Case 13-CA-8222 filed on January
22 and April 4, 1968, respectively, by Emmett Rogers,
herein Rogers, and upon a charge filed in Case
13-CA-8277 on February 16, 1968, by Clarence Frazier,
herein Frazier, against Furnco Construction Corporation,
herein Furnco, the General Counsel issued complaint
dated April 30, 1968, alleging Furnco violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
Upon a charge and an amended charge in Case
13-CB-2383 filed on January 18, 1968 and on April 1,
1968, respectively, by Rogers, and upon a charge in Case
13-CB-2419 filed February 19, 1968, by Frazier against
93
Local 41, Laborers International Union of North
America, herein Local 41, the General Counsel issued
complaint dated April 30, 1968, alleging Local 41 violated
Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. On the same day
the General Counsel issued an order consolidating the
cases for hearing.'
Furnco and Local 41 denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices 2
This proceeding with the General Counsel, Furnco and
Local 41 represented was heard by me at Chicago,
Illinois, on July 1, 1968. At the close of the hearing the
parties were given leave to file briefs and briefs were
received from all parties on August 5.
Upon the entire record' in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF FURNCO
Furnco is a New York corporation maintaining its
office and principal place of business at Buffalo, New
York. Furnco is engaged in the construction of coke ovens
in the states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and
Indiana. The operation involved in this proceeding was the
construction of coke ovens for Youngstown Sheet and
Tube Company at East Chicago, Indiana, herein known
as the Youngstown project. In the course of the past
calendar year Furnco caused to be delivered to the
Youngstown project materials valued in excess of $50,000
from places outside the state of Indiana.
Furnco is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 41 is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
Local 269, Laborers International Union of North
America, herein Local 269, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
The issues set forth in the complaint are simple and
were succinctly stated by the General Counsel in his
opening statement. In substance the General Counsel
stated that:
1. Local 41 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act on October 30, 1967, by refusing to refer Rogers and
Frazier to Furnco because Rogers had previously filed
unfair labor practice charges against Furnco and was
considered a troublemaker. (Germane to this issue is the
question whether Local 41 operated an exclusive hiring or
referral hall.)
2. Furnco discriminated against Rogers and Frazier at
the jobsite during October because Rogers had previously
filed unfair labor practice charges against Furnco and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.4
'At the hearing both complaints and answers were amended as to
matters not substantially affecting the issues
'Motions were made at the close of the hearing by Furnco and Local 41
to dismiss the complaint . These motions are disposed of in accordance with
the recommendations herein.
'General Counsel ' s motion to correct the record is granted
'Rogers had filed unfair labor practice charges against Furnco in 1964
The charges resulted from a dispute between Rogers and a Furnco
174 NLRB No. 19
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Furnco, with the knowledge that Local 41 had
discriminated against Rogers and Frazier by its refusal to
refer them, had acquiesced in such refusal and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Background
Furnco commenced construction of coke furnaces for
Youngstown at its East Chicago site in October 1967, and
completed the work sometime in January 1968. The
jobsite was within the territorial jurisdiction of Local 41
with respect to the employment of laborers.
Eugene Trippeer, business manager of Local 41,
testified that he had the usual prejob discussion with
representatives of Furnco and that they agreed to abide by
the terms of a "Working Agreement" (Joint Exhibit No.
1) between the area general contractors and Local 41. In
this agreement the Employer recognized Local 41 as
exclusive representative of all construction laborers.
The agreement, page 2, contained the following
provision with respect to hiring:
HIRING PROCEDURE
In the employment of men, no applicant shall be
discriminated against for membership or
non-membership in the Union. When the Employer has
requested the Union to furnish men for such a job, such
men shall be referred by the Union on a
non-discriminatory basis from an unemployment list
maintained by the Union
The Employer may call the Union for an individual
by name, provided that he is on the Unemployment list
and is not employed by another Employer
All applicants for employment may be required to
furnish the employer satisfactory evidence of their
qualifications and skill from any source that is
recognized as a proper source, not limited to the Union,
and copies of such evidence shall be kept by the
employer and the local union. The employer shall have
the right to reject any applicant for employment who is
unable to thus establish his qualifications and skill
necessary to perform the work required by the
employer or for any other reason.
The employer shall have the right to determine the
competency and qualifications of his employees and the
right to discharge accordingly.
The employer and the Local Union shall both post in
such places as notices are customarily posted a copy of
this Article
An appellate procedure shall be established which
will have representation of the Union, the Employer
and an impartial chairman, appointed jointly by the
Employer and the Union, for the purpose of hearing
grievances of applicants for employment and rendering
decisions which shall be final and binding.
During the period critical herein Al Urbanski was
construction superintendent for Furnco, Joseph Catanio,
known as Mustache Joe, was general foreman and
Thomas Green was night general foreman. Edward
Ballock was shop steward on the jobsite for Local 41 and
representative It was stipulated by the parties that a complaint was issued
and a settlement agreement executed
Trippeer was in charge of its hiring hall.
A great quantity of testimony was taken with respect to
the hiring practice at the Youngstown project, most of it
of little relevance to the issues of the case. Trippeer for
Local 41 and Catanio and Green for Furnco were in
substantial agreement as to the practice, although the
testimony is not free from confusion.
Trippeer testified., that if union members were hired
directly from the union hall they would be given
introduction slips which would be picked up by Ballock
when they reached the jobsite. As to those who were hired
at the jobsite, they usually were sent to the hall the next
day to receive their introduction slips. ' It is nowhere
alleged that the hiring clause was illegal or that the hiring
practice was discriminatory, except as to Rogers and
Frazier.
2. The refusal to hire Rogers and Frazier
Both Rogers and Frazier were members of Local 269,
not of Local 41.
Rogers testified that he first worked for Furnco in 1964
at a Wisconsin Steel project in Chicago It was at this
jobsite that the dispute above referred to occurred. The
dispute appears to have been over 4 hours' pay and a
steward named Brown of Local 269 gave Rogers some
money (whether it was the disputed pay is not disclosed)
and Rogers was laid off.'
Rogers testified that he again worked for Furnco at a
project at Sparrow's Point, Maryland, in 1965, for a
period of 3 weeks At the time he was laid off he was told
by Al Urbanski, superintendent for Furnco on that job
that if he (Urbanski) had known he was "the character
that had filed the charges against the company I never
would have got the job "
In 1966 Rogers again worked on a Furnco job in
Chicago and was laid off after 3 days because the job ran
out.
On or about October 3, 1967, Rogers applied for work
with Furnco at its Youngstown project. He went out on a
bus from Local 41 with other craftsmen and saw Al
Urbanski who told him they were not hiring then, but
would be in another week ' From that date until October
30 Rogers reported to the Local 41 hall everyday but
received no referral to any job.
On October 30, the date of the alleged discrimination,
Rogers went to the jobsite at about 6:15 in the morning.
He saw Mustache Joe (Catanio) and with him were
Clarence Frazier, John Flowers and John Young.' Catanio
told them Furnco would be hiring 15 men that day so
Rogers, Frazier and Flowers left for the union hall.
Catanio told Young to go to work. When they reached the
hall there was a line of about five or six men in front of
the business agent's office and they joined the line,
Rogers, Frazier and Flowers in that order. In a few
minutes Ballock came out and called out the names of
those who preceded Rogers in line. These men went into
'The purpose of the introduction slip was to have a record of the men
employed since the contract required payments of 10 cents per hour to
Local 41 's Welfare fund and 15 cents an hour to its pension fund for each
hour worked by employees covered by the agreement. Payments. were
made by the Employer
`Rogers denied to Brown that he had been "raising hell about four hours
pay „
'At about this time Rogers also saw Charlie Larkin and Thomas Green,
night supervisor and night general foreman , respectively , and was told they
were not hiring. There is no testimony by Rogers that on either of these
visits he saw other laborers hired
'Rogers did not go out to the jobsite with Frazier, Flowers and Young
FURNCO CONSTRUCTION CORP.
the office with Ballock and then left for the jobsite.
Rogers did not observe any other assignments made that
day, nor did, he observe any assignments during the
balance of the week. In November he started working for
A. P Green. He was hired at the jobsite and received his
introduction slip from Local 41.
Clarence Frazier testified that he was a member of
Local I in Chicago and that he had worked for Furnco at
Youngstown from October 1966, until April 1967. Ballock
was the union steward and Green the general foreman on
the job. He was hired at the jobsite by Green but when he
asked Ballock for his introduction slip he was told "f- - -
you guys from Chicago." Later through the intervention
of Richard Brown, another laborer, he was given his slip
and went to work.
On October 30, 1967 he, together with John Flowers,
applied for work at the Youngstown project. Emmett
Rogers and John Young were with them and all saw
Catanio. Catanio told them Ballock would hire 15 men
that morning and to get to the union hall. Frazier testified
that there were about 25 men in the hall and that Rogers,
he and Flowers got behind a line of four or five men
which had formed. Ballock arrived shortly and called out
about 15 names, including all in line in front of Rogers
and some who were elsewhere in the hall.' These who were
called went into the office and Frazier assumed they
received introduction slips and went to the Youngstown
project. Frazier was also at the hall the next day and saw
Ballock take two men into his office where he likewise
assumed they received slips and went to the jobsite. On
the following day Frazier stated that Trippeer gave
introduction slips to two men and sent them to the jobsite.
There were approximately 20 to 25 men in the hall on
each of these days. While Frazier reported on the
following 2 days he did not notice that anyone was sent
out. On November 11 Frazier obtained work with A. P.
Green, where he was hired at the jobsite, receiving his
introduction slip from Local 41 thereafter.
Curtis Bush, another general laborer and a member of
Local 269, testified that after October 9 he applied for
work at the Youngstown project everyday. He was present
at a conversation between a laborer named McKee who
told Ballock to hire him (Bush), promised Ballock that
Bush would not make any trouble and that he had never
made any trouble for the Negro members. A few days
later Bush was hired at the jobsite by Catanio and went to
Local 41 the next day where he received his introduction
slip.
In November Bush had a conversation with Ballock in
which Ballock told him he was thinking of "running a
job" after the Youngstown job and wanted to know if
Bush knew any good men." Ballock exempted Rogers
from consideration on the ground that Rogers was "a
troublemaker" and had filed charges against Furnco in the
past."
Catanio testified that he knew Rogers and also knew
that he had filed unfair labor practice charges against
but he was apparently with them when they talked to Catania
'This does not agree with the testimony of Rogers who stated only those
in line in front of him were called.
'"What Ballock meant by running a job or in what capacity he expected
to be employed was not explained.
"On cross-examination Bush admitted that he had litigation pending
against Trippeer and other trustees of Local 41's pension fund and also
had filed charges with the Board against Local 269 The testimony was
received to show possible bias and prejudice on the part of the witness
against Local 41.
95
Furnco some 4 or 5 years ago. He stated that one day in
October (the date he could not fix) he discovered that he
would need 15 men, that he contacted Ballock and
ordered them for the next morning. On the next morning,
which would be October 30, according to Rogers and
Frazier, he saw Rogers and Frazier at the jobsite and told
them he had called the steward the night before and asked
for 15 men and that they would be coming from the hall.
He advised Rogers and Frazier to go to the hall and see
"if he has his 15 men." Catanio testified that he received
his 15 and put them to work. Rogers and Frazier were not
among them. One laborer, John Young, was notified
through another laborer named Streeter to report on the
30th because Catanio knew him."2
The 33 pages of examination of Trippeer add nothing
to the summary of his testimony contained in the last
paragraph . of that part of this report entitled
"Background."
B. Conclusions
1. Discrimination by Local 41
It might first be noted that any proceeding based upon
an allegation that an individual has been discriminated
against by either an employer or a labor organization
because he had previously filed unfair labor practice
charges under the Act must be given the closest scrutiny.
The right of any employee to resort to the statute for
redress against discrimination is to be safeguarded at all
costs against subsequent reprisal. This does not, however,
relieve the General Counsel of his burden of proof.
The issue most easily disposed of in this case is the
General Counsel's allegation, paragraph VII (a) of the
complaint, that "Respondent Union and Respondent
Employer maintained and otherwise gave effect to an
arrangement, understanding or practice which required
referral, clearance or approval by Respondent Union as a
condition of employment with Respondent Employer at its
Youngstown project." No issue could have been more
exhaustively litigated than this.
The credible testimony of Catanio and Green
established that they could and did hire at the gate and
also hired through the union hall. (Catanio testified that
he had hired approximately 12 to 15 men at the gate and
Green testified that he hired all his men at the gate.)
Additionally there is direct evidence that Catanio hired
Young through a telephone call made by another
employee and put him to work on the morning of October
30 without referral to or clearance by the union hall."
Both Rogers and Frazier, the charging parties, testified
that they were hired at the A. P. Green job without
referral by the hall. It is a reasonable inference that had
there existed an exclusive hiring practice with Furnco the
same practice would include other contractors within the
jurisdiction of Local 4l.11
I 'Catanio was cross-examined as to Joint Exhibit No 3, which purported
to be a list, with dates, of the employees hired and laid off by Furnco at
Youngstown This list shows only 13 employees , including John Young,
were hired on October 30. It does show 2 employees rehired on October 28
and 3 hired on October 31. Nevertheless Catanio insisted he received 15
men on October 30
"This gate hiring of Young is used by the General Counsel to show
discrimination against Rogers and Frazier This overlooks the fact that
Catanio hired Young because he knew him from past experience and
wanted him on the job.
"General Counsel also relies on Frazier 's testimony that Green told him,
before hiring him in 1966 , to get an O .K from Ballock This does not
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While the General Counsel continually referred to the
necessity of clearance or referral by Local 41 it is clear
that he referred to the introduction slips (a term the
General Counsel refused to use) given employees sent to
the jobsite for hiring or to employees who had been hired
at the jobsite in order to have an accurate record of the
payments required to be made by the employer to the
Union's Health and Welfare and its Pension funds.t5
(These payments were based upon the number of hours
worked by its members.) This is a far cry from
establishing an exclusive hiring practice
The General Counsel admitted in his brief that an
exclusive hiring hall agreement, practice or arrangement is
essential to a finding of discrimination under Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act on the part of Local 41. The
evidence I have credited, and which is not contradicted,
does not support the finding of such an agreement,
practice or arrangement.
It is therefore my recommendation that the complaint
against Local 41 be dismissed."
2. Discrimination by Furnco
A more difficult question is presented with respect to
the charges filed by Rogers and Frazier against Furnco,
although as to Frazier I find no evidence of discrimination
except the fact that he was not hired. The General
Counsel's theory of discrimination rests on the fact that
Frazier was at the jobsite on October 30 with Rogers.
Frazier's own testimony is that he was hired at the
jobsite at Youngstown by Green in October 1966 and
worked until April 1967. Then, on October 30, 1967, he
was at the jobsite seeking employment together with
Rogers, Flowers, and Young. Young had been notified by
Catanio, through Streeter, on the previous day that he
would be hired and was put to work immediately. Rogers,
Frazier, and Flowers were advised by Catanio to get to
the union hall where Ballock would be referring 15 men
At the hall they joined a line which had formed in front of
the business agent's office and Ballock came out and
called off the names of the employees who were in front
of them in line. He called no names of members who were
past them in line. There is contradiction in the testimony
between Rogers and Frazier as to whether he called other
employees who were not in line. (Rogers said he did not
know, Frazier said he beckoned to other men sitting
around the hall.) All according to Frazier went into the
office, were given their slips and left. From this I am
asked to infer that Frazier was refused referral at the hall
establish that a similar procedure was followed in 1967 nor does it
establish anything more than that an introductory slip was required Green
denied telling Frazier he had to get an O.K. from Ballock and, as between
the two, I credit Green. Similarly I attach little import to Bush's testimony
that he was hired at Youngstown after another employee interceded with
Ballock to put him to work Nothing is more clearly established than that
Ballock did the referring for Local 41 but this does not establish that
Catanio did not also hire for Furnco . From Catanio 's testimony I find that
Catanio hired those employees whom he knew and wanted without
reference from Local 41 and, as to those whom he did not know, he sent to
the hall Intercession by an employee with either a union agent or a
company hiring agent to hire a fellow -member is certainly not uncommon
and proves nothing It is to be assumed that a union member would
intercede with the union shop steward with whom he was acquainted rather
than with the employer's hiring agent who would normally be a stranger to
him.
"These slips were not presented to the hiring agent for Furnco, Foreman
Catanio, but to Ballock , the Union's shop steward , for return to Local 41
"Local 357. I B T (Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express ) v N L R.B
365 U.S. 667.
simply and only because he was at the jobsite that
morning at the same time as Rogers." The General
Counsel does not allege that Flowers, who also appeared
at the jobsite on October 30 with Frazier and Rogers was
the subject of discrimination although he, too, was not
accepted for employment and, like Frazier and Rogers,
was sent to the union hall by Catanio. I find an
insufficiency of proof to support the General Counsel's
allegation that Frazier was denied employment because he
appeared at the jobsite with Rogers.
As to Rogers, a more difficult determination must be
made. Evaluating the factors which lead to an inference of
discrimination against Rogers, we have these:
(1) He did file unfair labor practice charges,
subsequently settled, against Furnco.
(2) He was later advised, after employment by Furnco,
by Urbanski, that if he had known it was Rogers who had
filed the charges he would not have been given
employment at Sparrow's Point -
(3) He was refused employment by Urbanski at the
Youngstown project on either October 3 or 4 on the
ground that work was not available. Furnco's records
(Joint Exhibit No. 3) show that one man was hired on
October 3 and that six men were hired on October 4.18
(4) Rogers was refused employment when he applied
for work at the jobsite on October 4 and 8 by Charlie
Larkin and Thomas Green on the ground that work was
not available. In addition to the employment of six men
on October 4 Furnco's records indicate that three men
were employed on October 7. The records do not indicate
whether these men were hired for the day shift operated
by Catanio or the night shift operated by Green. The
General Counsel does not allege this refusal as a violation,
presumably because of Green's testimony that on the
same day he refused employment to Rogers he refused
employment to his son and brother.
(5) Rogers was refused employment at the jobsite on
October 30 but was told by Catanio to go to the union
hall since he had requested 15 men. Rogers was not
among those referred by Local 41. (There is dispute as to
whether 15 or 13 men were actually referred since
Furnco's own records show only 13 men were hired on
October 30. Since Young would be among the 1',3 it would
appear that only 12 were sent from the hall. Catanio, as
previously stated, insisted he received 15 men.)"
"The General Counsel rests a part of this inference , seemingly, on the
testimony of Frazier that he saw Catanio talking to Ballock at the jobsite
as he, Flowers and Rogers left for the hall at Catanio 's suggestion. The
General Counsel suggests that the subject of conversation , concerning
which there is no testimony, was Rogers and Frazier To ask a Trial
Examiner the subject of a conversation concerning which there is no
testimony and to infer it adversely to the Respondents in making an
extravagant demand upon his gift for extrasensory perception The realms
of possibility concerning the topic of such a conversation are limitless and
could include, however unlikely, such subjects as the latest techniques in
the cultivation of fenugreek or the impact of the Ecumenical Congress
upon the liturgy of the Church. A finding of a Trial Examiner should be
based on something more than "wild surmise."
"Rogers quoted Urbanski as stating that they were not doing any hiring
"this minute at this time We expect to be hiring within a week " Urbanski
was not called as a witness.
"Ballock, certainly a key witness in this case, was not called by either
party The General Counsel suggest he was available to Local 41 but
Ballock was not a member of Local 41 The itinerant nature of the craft is
shown by the various geographical assignments given members The
General Counsel does have subpena powers and has , in my experience,
subpenaed witnesses from as far as Puerto Rico I draw no inference from
the failure of either party to call Ballock . It is regrettable , however, since
his testimony was essential to explanation of other testimony in the case
FURNCO CONSTRUCTION CORP.
(6) There is also the testimony of Bush that in a
conversation with Ballock at the jobsite in November
1967, Ballock told him he hoped to be running future jobs
but would not hire Rogers because he was a troublemaker
and had filed charges against Furnco in the past. Since
Ballock was an agent for Local 41 and not for Furnco I
do not find this testimony binding upon Furnco.
In reaching determination we are confined to two
refusals, the one by Urbanski on or about October 4 and
the one by Catanio on October 30. Neither refusal was
unqualified since Urbanski told Rogers that "they" were
not hiring at that minute but would be within the week
and Catanio advised Rogers to go to the hall where 15
men would be hired.
As to Urbanski's refusal the records of Furnco establish
that men were being hired during the week of October 4.
What the records do not disclose is when these hirings
were made - that is were they made the night previous to
the hiring by requesting men from Local 41 for the
succeeding day or were they made on the day of hiring. It
could therefore well be true that Rogers might have been
told by Urbanski, and incidentally Urbanski was not
doing the hiring at the Youngstown project, on October 4
that Furnco was not hiring at that minute since the
employees hired on that day may have already been
requested through the hall on the preceding day. (This is
what happened on October 30 when Catanio advised
Ballock on October 29 that he would need 15 men on the
following day.) I cannot, simply on the fact that Rogers
was not hired by Urbanski on October 4 find that the
reason for his rejection was the fact that he had filed
unfair labor charges in 1964. The record does reveal that
there was a reserve of unemployed laborers at all times at
the hall and that many of these were not referred to the
jobsite for employment. I shall not infer that this one
man, Rogers, was discriminated against in view of the
general labor situation among the members of Local 41
on the lone ground that he had filed charges against
97
Furnco and was, not offered employment when he
appeared at the jobsite:
The same conclusion is reached with respect to his
refusal of employment by Catanio on October 3,0. The
record indicates that Catanio hired at the jobsite only
those employees whom he knew and specifically wanted.
All others were referred to the hall.2° On October 30
Rogers, Frazier and Flowers were referred to the hall.
Young was put to work because he had been notified the
previous day that work was available for him. No other
applicants apparently appeared at the jobsite on that
morning. Again, the simple, fact that they were not
referred to Furnco by Local 41 does not sustain the
General Counsel's burden of proof against Furnco.
While I agree that the issue is close and that a contrary
conclusion could perhaps as easily be reached I do not
find that Furnco, by refusing employment to Rogers,
violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Furnco did not violate Section 8(a)(1),
(3) and (4) of the Act.
2. Respondent Local 41 did not violate Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety.
'°Catanio testified that he generally hired through the hall because he
wanted good relations with the Union and he could run a smoother job
that way This is certainly a plausible and nondiscriminatory reason,
particularly for a construction company moving from area to area