Glenn Machine Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 658 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Glenn Machine Works, Inc. and Roger D. Price
International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers , Local 92, AFL-CIO
and Roger D. Price . Cases 26-CA-10849 and
26-CB-2079
B. Respondent International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
Local 92, AFL-CIO, Birmingham, Alabama, its of-
ficers, agents, and representative, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
22 November 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND
BABSON
On 17 June 1985 Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The
Respondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that
A. Respondent Glenn Machine Works, Inc., Co-
lumbus, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
"(b) Offer immediate and full employment to
Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price in the posi-
tions they would have had but for the unlawful
conduct or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
in the manner set forth in the section of the deci-
sion entitled `The Remedy."'
2. Substitute the attached notice marked Appen-
dix A for that of the administrative law judge.
' The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir
1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings
2 The judge's recommended remedy provides that Respondent Glenn
be directed to return Roger Price to his former position of foreman and,
if necessary, remove from that position persons employed after it termi-
nated Price We do not agree The record does not clearly specify the
jobs that were available after 15 February 1984 for which Price was
qualified, but was wrongfully denied Therefore, we shall leave to the
compliance stage of this proceeding the determination of the position to
which Price should be reinstated
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they have
to get things straight with International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
Local 92, AFL-CIO or any other labor organiza-
tion before we employ them.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they have
to make it right with Ironworkers Local 92's busi-
ness agent before we employ them.
WE WILL NOT refuse to employ anyone because
they engage in protected internal union political
activities or because we believe that they are in dis-
favor with a labor organization because of protect-
ed activities.
WE WILL offer immediate and full employment
to Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price to the po-
sitions they would have had but for the unlawful
conduct, or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority or any other rights or privileges,
and WE WILL, along with International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
Local 92, AFL-CIO, make Jerry Wayne Rogers
and Roger Price whole for all loss of earnings suf-
fered by reason of our discrimination, with interest.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
GLENN MACHINE WORKS, INC.
277 NLRB No. 76
GLENN MACHINE WORKS 659
Margaret Theiner, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Hunter N. Gholson, Esq., for Respondent Glen Machine
Works, Inc.
Thomas N. Crawford Jr., Esq., for Respondent Ironwork-
ers Local 92.
Roger D. Price, appearing for himself.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge.
This matter was heard in Columbus, Mississippi, on 14
and 15 January 1985. The issues stem from an amended
complaint dated 28 November 1984. The original charge
was filed on 3 July 1984 in Region 10. On 15 August
1984 the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an order transferring the cases from
Region 10 to Region 26.
Facts i
In this case the General Counsel attempted to prove
that Respondent Glenn refused to employ, and Respond-
ent Local 92 refused to refer for employment, two mem-
bers of Local 92, Roger Price and Jerry Rogers, because
Price and Rogers were in disfavor with Local 92 as a
result of their involvement in internal union political ac-
tivities.
H. L. (Babe) Thacker, the current business agent of
Local 92, was opposed by Price and Rogers on three
separate occasions.
Prior to 1980 Thacker had served as Local 92's busi-
ness agent for a number of years. However, during the
1980 election, Wayne Lucas ran against Thacker and de-
feated him for the position of business agent. Both Price
and Rogers actively supported Lucas. The evidence
proved without conflict that their work in opposition to
the election of Thacker became known to both Thacker
and Respondent Glenn.
Prior to 1980, one of the assistant business agents for
Local 92 was Bonzell McGee Since at that time assistant
business agents served pursuant to appointment by the
business agent, McGee lost his position when Thacker
was defeated in the 1980 election.'
Roger Price opposed Thacker and McGee again fol-
lowing the 1980 election when Thacker and McGee at-
tempted to establish a separate local union in Columbus,
' The commerce facts and conclusions are not at issue Respondents,
Glenn and Local 92, respectively, in their answers as supplemented by
stipulations on the record, admitted that Glenn is a corporation with an
office and place of business in Columbus , Mississippi , where it is and has
been engaged in steel fabrication and erection and is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act Respondents also admitted that Local 92 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act
2 The record revealed that, beginning after 1980, the assistant business
agents, as well as the business agents, ran for election Although, unlike
the case of the business agent , the assistant business agents were not in-
stalled as a direct result of the election, it became the practice after 1980,
according to the testimony of H L Thacker, for the business agent to
appoint those two members who ran for assistant business agent and re-
ceived the highest and second highest number of votes respectively
Mississippi.3 At a meeting called to organize the Colum-
bus, Mississippi local Price spoke against the idea of a
Columbus local Again the position supported by Price
prevailed. Thacker and McGee were not successful in
organizing a separate local.
However, in 1983 when H. L. Thacker again ran for
election as business agent of Local 92 against Lucas, he
was successful. Again, Price and Rogers campaigned
against Thacker. After his election, Thacker tried unsuc-
cessfully to persuade one of the election winners to post-
pone his acceptance of an assistant business agent posi-
tion in order to enable Thacker to appoint Bonzell
McGee. Thacker did appoint McGee to another Local
92 position, that of area steward, for the area which in-
cluded Columbus, Mississippi.
Prior to the June 1983 election, both Price and Rogers
had been employed continuously for a number of years
by Respondent Glenn. In February 1984 both were ter-
minated by Glenn and, with rare exceptions, neither has
worked since then either for Glenn or for anyone pursu-
ant to referral from Respondent Union.
A. The Relationship Between Respondent Glenn and
Respondent Local 92
Glenn is engaged in the construction industry in Co-
lumbus, Mississippi. In that business , which includes the
installation of steel and machines, Glenn employs iron-
workers and millwrights. Glenn looks to Local 92 to
provide it with a competent work force of ironworkers.
Under the referral practice established by their collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, Glenn customarily calls for,
and Local 92 refers to Glenn, needed ironworkers.
Those referrals include ironworker foremen as needed by
Glenn.
It was proved without contest that the accepted prac-
tice provides that Glenn may acquire their ironworkers
by three methods:4
1. Glenn may request that Local 92 send it a cer-
tain number of Ironworkers without specifying the
workers by name. Under that type of request ac-
cording to the unrebutted testimony of Assistant
Business Agent Sam Shaw, Local 92 is obligated to
select from that respective month's out of work reg-
ister, beginning with the registered worker showing
the oldest out of work date and continuing progres-
sively to select each next out of work registrant
showing the longest out of work period, until
Glenn's requested number is satisfied.
2. Glenn may request any number of Ironworkers
by name. In that event, again according to the unre-
butted testimony of Sam Shaw, Local 92 is obligat-
ed to refer the requested member(s) even though
the particular Ironworkers may or may not be reg-
istered on that month's out of work register.
3 Respondent Local 92 which is located in Birmingham, Alabama,
serves 35 counties in Alabama and two, which include Columbus, in Mis-
sissippi
' Of course, Glenn could use any combination of the following meth-
ods to select a number of ironworkers
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Glenn may employ any Ironworker by con-
tacting the employee directly and not going
through Local 92.
B. The Facts Material to the Instant Controversy
1980
Roger Price testified that shortly after the 1980 union
election in which Wayne Lucas defeated H. L. Thacker
for business agent of Local 92, Thacker and Bonzell
McGee attempted to organize a separate local in Colum-
bus, Mississippi. A meeting was called with representa-
tives of the International. At that meeting Price spoke
out against a separate local in Columbus.
Afterward Price had a conversation with Bonzell
McGee in a restaurant in Hamilton, Mississippi:
A. (McGee) was really upset with,me about not
supporting him and-in his political moves to get
the Local Union and to-and defeating Mr.
Thacker in the '80 election.
Q. What did he say to you?
A. He said some things that I had rather not
repeat in court, but-in here in front of mixed com-
pany. But he told me that he would get even some
day. He'd get his chance. If he ever got back in
power he would get even with me.
As shown below, I discredit Bonzell McGee's denial
that he threatened Roger Price during the above-men-
tioned conversation.
1983 and 1984 (Before the Layoff of Rogers and
Price)
In June 1983 H. L. Thacker regained the position of
business agent by defeating Wayne Lucas.
Shortly after that election Roger Price saw Bonzell
McGee on a Glenn job at General Tire:
[McGee] said that things was going to change the
next three years in this area. The same people
wouldn't be working at Glenn Machine Works
after-all time, the same few that had been working
there would change.
Again, as shown below, I discredit McGee's denial of
the above conversation.
During the last 2 years of the administration of Wayne
Lucas as business agent, until 1983 Jerry Rogers served
as job steward on his jobs with Glenn. Bobby Hudson
served as area steward during the Lucas administration.
When Thacker was elected, he removed Hudson and
appointed Bonzell McGee as area steward. Concerning
the practice of removing job stewards, it is customary
for a job steward to be replaced in writing.
Jerry Rogers was working on a Glenn job at Weyer-
hauser when he was notified of his dismissal as job stew-
ard. His replacement brought a note written on toilet
paper by Business Agent Thacker to Tommy Glenn.
Tommy Glenn is one of the stockholders, along with his
brother Sonny, that manage Glenn. According to unre-
butted testimony of Jerry Rogers, the toilet paper note
read:
"To Tommy Glenn." And, it said down there, it
said, "Since I have been treated like shit for over
the period of the last three years I feel like this
paper is appropriate for this dismissal."
After the Weyerhauser job, Jerry Rogers, along with
Junior Plunk, started working on a Glenn job at General
Tire. Rogers, in accord with regular practice, appointed
himself job steward since he was the only ironworker on
the job. When two additional men were ordered 2 weeks
later, Bonzell McGee replaced Rogers as job steward.
However, since he had not been replaced by phone or
letter, Rogers called Assistant Business Agent Sam
Shaw. Shaw told Rogers that he should continue serving
as job steward. Nevertheless, the next day Shaw was
overruled and Rogers was dismissed as job steward on
the General Tire job. While still on the General Tire job,
Rogers had a conversation with Bonzell McGee in the
presence of Johnny Perkins. McGee told Rogers, "The
tables have been turned on you and your buddy."
Rogers testified that McGee was referring to Roger
Price as his buddy.5 Rogers and Roger Price had
worked together for several years.
As in all of the instances , Bonzell McGee denied the
above-mentioned conversation. I credit the testimony of
Jerry Rogers.
Discussion as to the Incidents Involving Bonzell
McGee
Bonzell McGee denied all questions which implied im-
proper comments by him. That testimony which was in
direct conflict with two other witnesses did not appear
logical under the circumstances. It was established that
McGee was strongly opposed on three occasions by
Price and Rogers. Moreover, McGee admitted that on
the day of his conversation with Price in Hamilton, Mis-
sissippi, Price refused to employ McGee after McGee
was referred to the job. Nevertheless, according to
McGee, he said nothing at any time to either Price or
Rogers which would demonstrate his displeasure with
their treatment of him. Moreover, in another area
McGee's answers under cross-examination were conflict-
ing. When first asked by the General Counsel about ef-
forts to have him appointed assistant business agent in
1983, McGee denied all knowledge of such an effort.
Subsequently, McGee admitted that he had heard talk
that Thacker wanted to replace Assistant Business Agent
Goolsby with McGee.
I observed McGee's demeanor. I was not impressed
with his demeanor. I found that he was evasive in his an-
swers on cross-examination. While other agents of the
Union, notably Sam Shaw, admitted making comments
which reflected conflicts between McGee and Thacker
on one hand and Rogers and Price on the other,
McGee'stestimony failed to reveal similar candor. In my
opinion, Bonzell McGee was not a reliable witness.
5 According to Rogers , his only other buddies were Johnny and Terry
Perkins . However, both Johnny and Terry Perkins were supporters of H.
L Thacker Moreover, Johnny Perkins was present when McGee made
the above-mentioned statement to Rogers.
GLENN MACHINE WORKS
Both Roger Price and Jerry Rogers appeared to testify
in a credible fashion. In most respects involving persons
other than Bonzell McGee, their testimony was either
unrebutted, admitted, or not directly denied . Additional-
ly, I was impressed with their testimony on cross.
Roger Price was particularly impressive in his explana-
tion of several incidents which Respondent Glenn point-
ed to as a basis for Price's layoff. Although Price ex-
pressed surprise at the way in which Glenn allegedly
weighed those incidents, his recollection of the facts ap-
peared frank and similar to the factual accounts of
Tommy Glenn.
In my opinion both Rogers and Price were truthful in
their testimony.
January 1984
In January 1984 Price spoke with Assistant Business
Agent Eddie Goolsby first in the underlay department at
General Tire and then at the Reagan Company. Goolsby
told Price that Business Agent Thacker had asked
Goolsby to step down as assistant business agent and
permit Thacker to appoint Bonzell McGee to the assist-
ant business agent position. In return Thacker promised
Goolsby Roger Price's job at Glenn. At that time Price
was a foreman at Glenn. Goolsby told Price that "They
were going to get [Price] one way or the other, they
were going to get [Price's] job."
Discussion
H. L. Thacker admitted that he did ask Eddie Goolsby
to temporarily step down in order to permit the appoint-
ment of Bonzell McGee as assistant business agent.
Thacker testified that after considering his request,
Goolsby declined to step down.
Goolsby did not personally testify. In an affidavit
which was offered into the record, Goolsby's testimony
did not include the above-mentioned January conversa-
tion. No explanation was offered as to how Price knew
of Thacker's proposal to have Goolsby step down as as-
sistant business agent, other than through the above-men-
tioned conversations with Goolsby, In view of my find-
ing that Price was a credible witness and the lack of a
denial about the contents of his conversations with
Goolsby, I find that the conversations occurred as relat-
ed by Price.
The Layoffs
Both Price and Rogers were laid off by Glenn at or
near the completion of Glenn's General Tire job around
15 February 1984.
As to his layoff, Price testified:
A. That was a pay period ending February 15th.
I'm not really positive that was the last day. That
was the last pay period . Anyhow the last day that I
worked , Mr. Glenn came by and we rode around
back of the Underlay and looked over the job. He
did, occasionally he carne by the job.
JUDGE ROBERTSON: Which Mr . Glen are you
talking about?
661
THE WITNESS: Mr. Tommy Glenn. And, told me
to take a few days off. And, that we would have
something coming up real soon.
BY Ms. THEINER: (Resuming.)
Q. Okay, did he say anything else to you?
A. Yes, ma'am . I asked him to go-about going
on down to Weyerhauser. And, since these rumors,
you know, I trusted the man-but the rumors
were-well, I asked him about going to Weyer-
hauser and he said we couldn't do that right now.
Couldn't let me go down there right now.
The Post Layoff Period
Following their layoffs, both Price and Rogers sought
work from Glenn and through Local 92.
Approximately 2 weeks after his layoff , Price asked
Tommy Glenn for work while he was at Glenn to pick
up his check . Glenn told Price there was no work ready
for Price . Price testified that after that conversation he
had several conversations with Tommy Glenn in which
he asked for work. Tommy Glenn admitted that Price
talked to him about work . Glenn admitted specifically
that Price talked to him "about doing other work [than
work as a foreman] as well [as work as a foreman]."
On 4 June 1984 according to Price he had a phone
conversation with Tommy Glenn:
A. Yes, Ma'am , I called Mr . Glenn and asked
him, after I had seen the-I didn 't think he was
ever going to let me go back to work , I asked him
what the problem was, what could I do to make
things rights and get back to work.
He said that I would have to make things-get
things straight between myself and the Business
Agent or the Union before I could return to work.
Q. And , where were you when you made this
call?
A. From my home.
Q. Do you remember anything ; else that was said
in that conversation?
A. Yes, I asked him was this the reason I hadn't
been working, and he said it was. That I just had to
get things right between myself and the Union
before I could go back to work.
Tommy Glenn was asked if he recalled telling Price
that "for him to get employment he would have to make
it right with the Union?" Glenn replied, "I don't remem-
ber saying that to Roger [Price]."
After his layoff, Jerry Rogers was also unsuccessful in
finding work . In May 1984 according to his testimony he
went to Glenn , and spoke to Tommy Glenn and Sonny
Glenn:
A. We went into Tommy's office, wasn't anyone
in there the best that I can remember now. And, we
sat down. And, I asked Sonny and Tommy, I said, I
want to know how come I can't work no more.
Sonny said I thought you was working.
He turned and looked at Tommy, and said,
Tommy, do you know anything about this. And,
Tommy said Jerry, you're going to have to make it
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
right with Babe Thacker. And, he also told me that
Roger had to make it right with Babe Thacker too.
When asked about the above conversation, Tommy
Glenn testified:
Jerry Wayne came in the office one day and
wanted to go to work and wanted to know why he
hadn't gone to work. And, he was talking to me
and Sonny both. And, I told him that he needed to
go back to the Local and get referred, or go back
and get straightened out with Babe or whoever it
was to get straightened out with so he could get re-
ferred to the job.
Discussion
As shown above, I found both Price and Rogers to be
credible witnesses. I am convinced that Tommy Glenn
told both, in effect, that they would have to get straight
with the Union before they could return to work with
Glenn Machine. Glenn admitted having that conversa-
tion with Rogers, and he did not recall the conversation
with Price. I credit Price and Rogers' account of those
two conversations.
Contact with the Union
The record shows that beginning immediately after
their layoffs from Glenn, Price and Rogers contacted the
Union about needing work.
On the next day after his layoff, Roger Price called
Local 92 and spoke with Assistant Business Agent
Goolsby and perhaps Assistant Business Agent Shaw as
well.6 Price specifically recalled the conversation with
Goolsby. He told Goolsby that, "I was afraid that what
he had told me before had gone to pass, that they had
gotten my job." Price told Goolsby that he was out of
work.
From that time Price continued to call and visit Local
92 on a regular basis .' Price testified that he frequently
told the assistant business agents at Local 92 that both he
and Jerry Rogers needed work. Rogers also made nu-
merous phone calls and visits to Local 92 seeking refer-
ral for work. Local 92 witnesses Thacker and Shaw did
not dispute testimony from Price and Rogers that they
frequently contacted the Local and indicated that they
remained out of work. However, Shaw testified that the
Local's operating procedure requires that members may
be referred for work only when requested specifically by
name by an employer or in response to a request for un-
specified ironworkers, when they appear on the respec-
tive month's out-of-work register . Only members listed
on that month's out-of-work register are eligible for re-
ferral unless an employer specifies a requested worker by
name. According to Shaw, members may register as out
of work through one of two methods:
8 Price testified that he believed he also talked with Shaw on that oc-
casion
° Price's phone bill reflected that he called the Local office 25 times
during the period from March through 13 December 1984
1. The member may appear at the Local's office
during the respective month and personally sign the
out of work register, listing his last day of work.
2. The member, if he lives over 50 miles from the
union hall, as did Price and Rogers, may call the
business agent or one of the assistant business agents
and have his name placed on the register. However,
the member's name will not be placed on the regis-
ter unless the member specifically asks the business
agent or assistant business agent to put his name on
the register.
Assistant Business Agent Shaw testified that for sever-
al months after their termination in February, both Price
and Rogers failed to specifically request him to place
their names on the register. 8 Shaw admitted that from
the time he first talked to Price and Rogers, after their
February 1984 layoffs, he knew they were out of work
and were looking for jobs. He also admitted he knew
they were calling from 100 miles from the Local hall.
Shaw recalled that at some point he explained that Price
and Rogers needed to be on the out-of-work register,
and that he did sign them on the register. However,
through October 1984, neither Price nor Rogers ap-
peared on the register (see below). Until that time nei-
ther Price's, nor Rogers' names were included on the reg-
ister because, according to the Local, neither specifically
asked that their name be entered.
Price and Rogers testified that they contacted the
Local in the hope of being referred out to work, and it
was not until after the unfair labor practice charge was
filed in July that they learned of the Union' s requirement
that callers must specifically request inclusion on the out-
of-work register. Neither was told by the Union of that
practice.
Price was unable to recall specifically when he re-
quested inclusion on the out-of-work register, but he be-
lieved he made a specific request in July or August.
On 24 September 1984 Price called Assistant Business
Agent Goolsby and asked to be referred to a job at
Glenn. Price told Goolsby that he had learned from
Glenn's supervisor, Perkins, that Glenn was ordering
eight men that day. Goolsby told Price that he was on
the out-of-work referrals and would be the next referred
to a job. However, Price was not called.
Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw admitted to a con-
versation with Price in September 1984:
That's when he-the best I can remember that's
when he told me that he was suing, you know,
about the lawsuit. And, then he had told me that
Mr. Goolsby had told him the reason he wasn't
working he had voted the wrong way.
8 Neither Price nor Rogers was aware of the requirement that mem-
bers must specifically request inclusion of their names on the out-of-work
register. There was no showing on the record that Local 92 ever in-
formed its members of that practice.
9 The regular out-of-work registers did not show inclusion of either
Price or Rogers from February through October 1984 However, four
pages covering portions of the months of February and August or Sep-
tember had been removed and were missing. I credit Price's account of
his 24 September conversation with Goolsby
GLENN MACHINE WORKS
Price recalled that in one of his conversations when he
called Assistant Business Agent Shaw at Shaw's home,
Shaw told him that what Thacker and McGee had
against him most was his opposition to the Columbus
local being established. I credit Price's recollection of
this conversation.
Jerry Rogers testified that during March 1984 while in
the union hall to pay his dues, Assistant Business Agent
Goolsby told Rogers that "The reason that we had lost
our jobs that we didn't support Babe Thacker."10 On
that same visit Rogers talked with Assistant Business
Agent Sam Shaw. Shaw told Rogers, "I guess you know
. . . you just didn't back the right person." After review-
ing his affidavit, Rogers recalled that "Sam [Shaw] said
we didn't support Babe, me or Roger, that's the reason
we lost our job." I credit Rogers' testimony.
In addition to his discussions with the Union, Rogers,
as well as Price, regularly talked to Glenn about work.
On one occasion Rogers talked with Supervisor Terry
Perkins. Perkins told him Glenn had a job going at Jef-
frey Steel and that he could use Rogers for that job. Per-
kins told Rogers, "that he had been trying to get them to
call me . . . they wouldn't call me."" 1 On cross-exami-
nation, Rogers recalled that Perkins told him that he had
been trying to get Steward Woodrow Howell to have
Local 92 refer Rogers to the Glenn job.
Glenn's Superintendent Cornithan testified that he had
requested Rogers on a couple of occasions in 1984, but
that Rogers was not sent by the Union.
C. Findings
The ultimate question herein involves the allegations
that Price and Rogers were illegally denied referrals and
employment by Respondents because of their internal
union political activities. There was no contention made
by either Respondent to the effect that either Price or
Rogers engaged in any union activity which would legal-
ly justify reprisals. Their internal union political activities
constitute activities protected under the National Labor
Relations Act. A violation must be found if the evidence
establishes that Price and Rogers were denied referrals
and/or employment because of their internal union politi-
cal activities regardless of the fact that Local 92's hiring
hall was not their exclusive means of employment. Team-
sters Local 923 (Yellow Cab), 172 NLRB 2137 (1968);
Hoisting & Portable Engineers Local 4, 189 NLRB 366
(1971).
Each Respondent denies that employment/referrals
were deified Price and Rogers because of their union ac-
tivities.
In determining the relevant issues, it is unnecessary to
determine whether there was collusion between the two
Respondents. If the evidence shows that Respondent
Glenn denied employment to Price and/or Rogers be-
cause of their union political activities or simply because
of its belief that they were in disfavor with Local 92 be-
10 Again, I credit Rogers' testimony Goolsby did not testify at the
hearing His affidavit contained a denial that he told Rogers why Rogers
was laid off Since I was unable to obseive Goolsby ' s demeanor , I credit
Rogers whom I found to be a credible witness
11 Rogers ' testimony about his conversation with Perkins was unrebut-
ted
663
cause of their union political activities , a violation would
have been established. Steelton, Inc., 266 NLRB 881, 885
(1983).
Moreover, if the evidence shows that Local 92 refused
to refer, or otherwise interfered with, employment for
Price and/or Rogers because of their political union ac-
tivities, a violation will have been established.
The record shows that Roger Price was neither re-
ferred to work by Local 92 nor was he employed by
Glenn from 15 February 1984 until 20 October 1984. On
21 October he was telephoned by Assistant Business
Agent Sam Shaw and told to report to work for Glenn
at the jobsite for Weyerhauser. As directed, Price report-
ed the following day. However, Local 92's job steward
and the Glenn foreman refused to permit Price to work.
Price went to Glenn's office and asked Tommy Glenn
why he was' not permitted to, work. Glenn told Price
that he did not know but perhaps they did not want him
down there anymore. Glenn said he did not know
"where he was legally" but that he would get back with
Price later. Later that evening, 22 October 1984, Glenn's
superintendent Jerry Cornithan telephoned Price and
told him to report to work at Glenn's Weyerhauser job
on 23 October and that Price would also be paid as
though he had worked on 22 October.
After a few days, Price was transferred to Glenn's job
at United Cement. Price telephoned Assistant Business
Agent Shaw and asked who was job steward since Price
was the only ironworker on that job. Shaw appointed
Price as job steward. However, Price was removed as
job steward by Bonzell McGee. McGee sent word by his
son, Steve McGee, that McGee did not want anybody
that had a charge against the Local being a job steward.
Price continued to work for Glenn until 9 November
1984 when he was laid off. Price has not been recalled.
Rogers worked for Glenn for 2 days in June 1984 even
though he was not referred by Local 92, and in Novem-
ber 1984 for about 9 days. He, like Price, has not been
recalled.
The record illustrated that from 15 February 1984
Glenn had positions available which it could have filled
with Price and/or Rogers.
In consideration of the allegations of 8(a)(1) and (3)
violations by Glenn's refusing to employ Price and
Rogers after 15 February 1984, the crucial question is
one of motive. Regarding Price, Glenn, through Tommy
Glenn, contended that because of several factors, it
became dissatisfied with Price's work as foreman and
elected to try someone else in that position. Glenn did
not advance any reasons why it elected not to employ
Price as a journeyman, and, in fact, as shown above, it
did employ him as a journeyman in October and Novem-
ber 1984.
Concerning Rogers, Tommy Glenn admitted that
Glenn was not unhappy with Rogers' work. Glenn Su-
perintendent Cornithan and Foreman Perkins admittedly
sought, without success, the Union 's referral of Rogers
to Glenn jobs.
In accord with the rationale of Wright Line, 251
NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Or. 1981),
cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), I shall first question
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whether the General Counsel proved a prima facie case.
If that question is answered. yes, then I shall consider
whether Respondent would have refused to employ
Price or Rogers in the absence of their protected activi-
ties.
Obviously, the most damaging evidence against Glenn
is the credited testimony that Tommy Glenn told first
Rogers, then Price, that they had to get straight with the
Union before he could put them to work. A similar com-
ment was found to establish an 8(a)(1) and (3) violation
in Berry-Mahurin Construction, 258 NLRB 1259 ( 1981).
Glenn could have hired Price and Rogers by either spe-
cifically requesting them from Local 92 or by employing
them directly without going through the Local. Glenn
was under no legal obligation to await Local 92's ap-
proval before hiring either Price or Rogers. Tommy
Glenn's comments illustrate his unwillingness to risk dis-
pleasing the Union by hiring Price or Rogers. See
Chapin & Chapin, 213 NLRB 250, 255 (1974).
Glenn argues that it should not be held responsible for
abuses by a union hiring hall. I agree. However, that is
not at issue here. Glenn was not bound to the hiring hall.
The record established that Glenn could legally hire
Price and Rogers without even contacting Local 92.
Glenn's motive in refusing to regularly employ Price
and Rogers is further illustrated in comments to Rogers
by other Glenn agents. Both Foreman Terry Perkins and
Superintendent Cornithan requested that Rogers be re-
ferred to Glenn by Local 92. Neither Perkins nor Cor-
nithan's request was honored. As noted above, Glenn
could have employed Rogers directly on all those occa-
sions. Apparently, they did not do so because Rogers did
not receive a referral from Local 92.
I find that the record establishes the following:
1. In May 1984, Tommy Glenn told Jerry Rogers
that he and Roger Price had to "make it right" with
Business Agent Thacker in order to work for
Glenn. 12
2. On 4 June 1984, Tommy Glenn told Roger
Price that he had not been working for Glenn and
could not work for Glenn until he got " straight"
with the business agent.
3. Subsequently, Foreman Perkins and Superin-
tendent Cornithan told Jerry Rogers that they had
tried without success to have the Local refer
Rogers to Glenn jobs. Rogers was not hired on
those occasions even though Glenn could have le-
gally hired him without going through the Local.
The above comments by admitted supervisors of Glenn
establish that Glenn's motive in refusing to regularly
employ Price and Rogers after 15 February 1984 was
their impression that Price and Rogers were in disfavor
with Local 92. I find that the General Counsel has estab-
lished a prima facie case that Glenn has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) by refusing to regularly employ Rogers
and Price after 15 February 1984,
12 Glenn employed Rogers on a job of 2 days' duration in June 1984.
However, he has never been rehired to a position substantially equivalent
to the regular job he held with Glenn before February 1984.
I shall now consider whether the record shows that
Glenn would have continued to refuse to employ Price
and Rogers absent their political activity.
Regarding Jerry Rogers, Tommy Glenn admitted that
Glenn "had no reason not to" rehire Rogers. Rogers
worked for Glenn regularly for at least 2 years before his
February 1984 layoff. Since that layoff, he has worked
only briefly on two occasions (see above). Tommy
Glenn testified that Glenn would have employed Rogers
if he had been referred to them by the Union. As shown
above, I have found that the General Counsel proved
that Glenn could have hired Rogers after February 1984
but did not do so because of his protected activities. In
view of Tommy Glenn's above-mentioned testimony, it is
apparent, and I find, that Glenn did not show that
Rogers would have been denied employment in the ab-
sence of his protected activities.
Regarding Roger Price, early in the instant hearing,
Tommy Glenn was examined by counsel for the General
Counsel as follows:
Q. Why did you not want him back?
A. I had other people to do the job just as good.
Q. Okay, any other reason that you didn't call
Mr. Price?
A. Yeah. Do you want me to give my-the use-
you're asking me to tell you why I didn't want to
work him any more?
Q. Correct.
A. Jerry Wayne is an entirely different thing
from Roger. I didn't-he just wasn't referred.
Roger-well, the time that we laid Roger off at
General Tire and there was a period that I thought
I would try it without Roger and see how I got
along without him. And, we got along just fine, so
we didn't want to use him any more.
We had had some recurring problems on the job,
just things that kind of built up over a period of
time . And, we decided we would try it without
Roger, or I did. And, I tried it without him and ev-
erything went just fine, so I didn't want him any
more.
Q. What kinds of problems, Mr. Glenn?
A. Well, we kept having a problem on the job
with the ironworkers and the millwrights. The Iron-
workers didn't want to work for a Millwright. Jerry
Cornithan, who was the boss, the problem kept
cropping up, just kept coming up. And, we would
go and stop it but it kept coming back up.
In addition to that we kept having lots of com-
plaints from our customers.
Q. What kinds of complaints?
A. Not a lot of complaints, some. The foremen
being late for work, leaving work early in the after-
noon, and the quality of the work.
Q. The quality of Mr. Price's work?
A. Right.
Q. Can you give me an example or explain what
you mean by the quality of his work?
A. I don't know, you know, just-rather than
drilling holes on a job, was burning holes with a
torch. Having to go back to the job too frequently
GLENN MACHINE WORKS
to make the customer happy with them, you know,
put them like he wanted them. Is that an example?
Q. I'm asking you. Is that one of the things that
you relied upon?
A. Urn-huh.
Q. Anything else that you relied upon, Mr.
Glenn? In considering Mr. Price's work, the quality
of his work?
A. The quality of the work?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yeah, talking about the profitability of it.
Wasn't making any money on what we were doing.
Q. Was that a factor in your not hiring Mr.
Price?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Anything else, Mr Glenn' Any other reasons
why you didn't recall Mr. Price?
A. Abusing the equipment.
Q. Okay. When was that?
A. It just went on over a period of time.
Q. What period of time are you talking about'
A. I mean the time he worked, for me. You
know, the truck, he would drive it, just.abusing it.
We lost a lot of hand tools, small tools he wouldn't
keep up with, etcetera.
Q. Anything else?
A. Nothing that I can think of right now.
Concerning customer complaints, Tommy Glenn first
,estified that the complaints occurred along about "Feb-
ruary when Roger (Price) was laid off' or a little before
that time. Glenn testified that the complaints were about
what was done on the job where Price was foreman, as
opposed to being specifically about Roger Price's work.
Subsequently, when recalled to testify by Glenn,
Tommy Glenn recalled that the complaints he received
included one from General Tire during 1982 and that
complaint involved quality of work. However, Tommy
Glenn testified that he did not recall the specific com-
plaint from General Tire. Tommy Glenn also testified
that he received a complaint from Weyerhauser, that he
did not recall when but "it was probably in 1982" and
that it involved "not following directions" but Glenn did
not recall what the directions entailed. Glenn testified
that he talked'to Price about those problems in 1982. In
conflict with his earlier testimony, Tommy Glenn re-
called no customer complaints about or shortly before
February 1984.
Price testified that some problems did arise on one of
the General Tire jobs. However,' he testified he was
never told that he was being held accountable for the
problems which included fabrication of materials. Fabri-
cation was performed in the shop and was not performed
under Price's supervision. Regarding Weyerhauser, Price
testified that he was unaware of any complaints although
he admitted that the job was complex and slow due to
the nature of the work.
Price never received a reprimand about any of his
work.
Concerning abuse of equipment, Tommy Glenn testi-
fied that, through no fault of Price, a truck was damaged
when a garbage truck backed into it while it was parked
665
in Starkville, Mississippi. Glenn believed the incident oc-
curred in the summer of 1982. Glenn did not hold Price
responsible for the accident but did find fault in'Price's
inability to have the city of Starkville remedy their dam-
ages to Glenn's truck. Price testified without rebuttal
that he went to Starkville but was unsuccessful in acquir-
ing a copy of the police report of the accident. Howev-
er, according to Price, it was customary for Glenn's sec-
retary to handle matters involving damage of the type in-
volved in the truck accident. Tommy Glenn did not say
how Price was at fault in failing to have the city of
Starkville remedy the truck damage. Tommy Glenn testi-
fied subsequently that a boom on a crane was bent on
Price's General Tire job after Price had left the job one
day. However, Glenn admitted that Price was routinely
required to leave the job for various reasons including
handling personal business for himself and for Tommy
Glenn. For example, Glenn admitted that occasionally
Price was asked to leave the job and pick up football
tickets for Tommy Glenn. ' According to Price's unrebut-
ted testimony, when he told Glenn that the crane's boom
had been bent, Glenn told him "not to worry about it,
that he would take care of that; said I worried too
much."
Tommy Glenn pointed out that there was continuing
controversy between the millwrights and the ironwork-
ers, and he came to the conclusion that Roger Price was
the cause of that controversy. Glenn recalled a problem
between the ironworkers and the Millwrights existed
during the administration of Business Agent Wayne
Lucas. Lucas' administration ended in June 1983.
Another witness for Respondent Glenn, Superintend-
ent Jerry Cornithan, testified that he and Roger Price
had only one conversation with Tommy Glenn about
problems between the ironworkers and the millwrights
and whether Cornithan, a millwright, or Price, an iron-
worker, was overall boss. Cornithan testified that that
one conversation occurred in 1981 or 1982.
The record reveals that none of the reasons given for
refusing to continue to employ Price were ever con-
veyed to Price as a basis for disciplinary action against
him. Moreover, with the exception of the bent crane
boom which occurred during Price's absence, none of
the alleged incidents occurred at a time proximate to
Price's February 1984 layoff. As an example, Tommy
Glenn complained of 1982 complaints from General Tire
and Weyerhauser. Nevertheless, the record shows that
after those complaints, Glenn assigned Price as foreman
on other jobs at Weyerhauser and General Tire in 1983
and 1984.
Therefore, I find that the record does not support a
finding that Glenn would have refused to employ Price
in the absence of his protected activities. Before Febru-
ary 1984, Price had worked for Glenn on a regular basis
for over 10 years. For approximately 8 years before Feb-
ruary 1984, Price had been an ironworker foreman for
Glenn. Since February 1984, Price has worked for Glenn
as a journeyman briefly on one occasion (see above), at a
time after the instant charges were filed.
Tommy Glenn also testified that he changed his plan
to employ Price as foreman on a job at Jeffrey Steel be-
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cause Price told him he was so mad about being out of
work that he was going to whip two ironworkers if they
showed up. Price admitted having that conversation with
Tommy Glenn. Glenn said that he decided not to use
Price as foreman because if he would "put him on the
job out there and he would be whipping somebody and
that would be me. I couldn't do that."
However, Respondent's witness, Superintendent Cor-
nithan, testified that Roger Price did not have a temper
problem. During his conversation with Tommy Glenn,
Price was referring to his continuing controversy with
Local 92 over his failure to be referred for work. On
other occasions, he discussed the problem with Tommy
Glenn including 4 June 1984 when he told Glenn he was
suing the Union. At that time Tommy Glenn indicated
that he did not disapprove of Price's actions.
I am convinced that both Glenn and Price were well
aware that Price, by threatening to whip two ironwork-
ers, was doing nothing more than expressing his frustra-
tions over his treatment by the Local since February
1984. At the time of their conversation, work had al-
ready started on the Jeffrey Steel job and Price had not
been hired. Moreover, before that date, Tommy Perkins
had been promoted to ironworker foreman by Glenn
and, as shown above, Perkins told Jerry Rogers that "he
had" the job at Jeffrey Steel. Additionally, as shown
above, Tommy Glenn alleged that for numerous reasons
which occurred before the Jeffrey Steel job, he had de-
cided not to use Price as foreman.
All the above factors demonstrate that it was never
Glenn's intention to employ Price as foreman on the Jef-
frey Steel job. Moreover, Price was never told that he
would not be hired because of Glenn's alleged fear that
he may get into a fight on the job.
I find that Tommy Glenn used his conversation with
Price as another pretext for refusing to employ Price.
The record failed to establish that Price would have not
been hired on any of Glenn's jobs after 15 February 1984
absent his protected activities. As in the case of Jerry
Rogers, Respondent offered no justification whatsoever
for refusing to employ Price as a journeyman, as op-
posed to a foreman, after 15 February 1984.
Therefore, in accord with the decision in Wright Line,
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by
refusing to employ Jerry Rogers and Roger Price at all
times when it employed ironworkers other than Price
and Rogers after 15 February 1984.
The 8(a)(1) Allegations
As shown above, I credit the testimony that in May
1984 Tommy Glenn threatened Jerry Rogers, and on 4
June 1984 Tommy Glenn threatened Roger Price that
they could not work for Glenn until they corrected their
differences with Local 92 (see above). Those comments
by Glenn tend to restrain and coerce employees in the
exercise of Section 7 rights. It was well known by
Glenn, Price, and Rogers that the differences between
Price and Rogers and Local 92 arose as the result of the
internal union political activities of Price and Rogers.
Those are protected activities. Glenn's comments tend to
restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of those
and similar activities.
The Allegations Against Local 92
From 15 February 1984 until October 1984, Roger
Price was not referred out to work by Local 92. Neither
was Jerry Rogers referred out during that period. How-
ever, the record proved and it was admitted by Local 92
admitted agent, Assistant Business Agent Sam Shaw, that
Price and Rogers had sought Local 92's assistance in
finding work immediately after their 15 February 1984
layoffs by Glenn.
The record is substantial that Local 92 was motivated
to even the score with Rogers and Price:
1. Admitted Local 92 Agent Bonzell McGee told
Roger Price in 1980 that he would get even with
Price if McGee ever got back in power.
2. Shortly after June 1983, Bonzell McGee told
Roger Price that the same people would not be
working at Glenn Machine during the next 3 years.
3. In 1983, Business Agent Thacker wrote a note
to Tommy Glenn on toilet paper dismissing Jerry
Rogers as Glenn's job steward stating, "since I've
been treated like shit for over the period of the last
3 years, I feel like this paper is apropriate for this
dismissal."
4. Bonzell McGee told Jerry Rogers that the
tables had turned on Rogers and Price.
5. Admitted agent, Assistant Business Agent
Eddie Goolsby, told Roger Price in January 1984
that he had been promised Price's job if Goolsby
would step down as assistant business agent and that
"one way or the other, they were going to get
[Price's] job."
6. In March 1984, Goolsby told Rogers that the
"reasons we had lost our jobs that we didn't sup-
port Babe Thacker." On that same date, Shaw told
Rogers that he "just didn't back the right person."
7. Assistant Business Agent Shaw admitted learn-
ing from Roger Price in September 1984 that As-
sistant Business Agent Goolsby had told Price that
Price was not working because "he had voted the
wrong way." Shaw did not dispute the accuracy of
Goolsby's comments.
8. Assistant Business Agent Shaw told Price that
what Thacker and McGee "had against him most
was his opposition to the Columbus local being es-
tablished."
9. On 24 September 1984 Assistant Business
Agent Goolsby told Price that he was on the out-
of-work referral list and was being referred a job
with Glenn. The out-of-work list in evidence does
not show that Price's name was included,13 and
Price was not referred to Glenn as promised by
Goolsby.
10. Glenn Foreman Terry Perkins told Rogers
that he had unsuccessfully tried to have job steward
Woodrow Howell call Rogers for work and
Glenn's Superintendent Cornithan asked Local 92
for Rogers to be referred to Glenn without success.
I' As noted above, four pages are missing and those pages may include
a portion of September 1984
GLENN MACHINE WORKS
Due to the missing out-of-work register pages for por-
tions of March and August or September 1984, I cannot
determine that Price and Rogers were not registered
during those months. However, I can and do find,
through the admissions of Assistant Business Agent
Shaw , that from 15 February 1984, Local 92 has been
fully aware that Price and Rogers were actively seeking
assistance from Local 92 in finding work. H. H. Robert-
son Co., 263 NLRB 1344 (1982); Ironworkers Local 798
(AGC of Mobile), 272 NLRB 679 (1984); Teamsters Local
294, 204 NLRB 700 (1973).
Local 92's refusal to provide that assistance presents a
clear abuse of its authority . That action tends to restrain
and coerce its members in the exercise of protected inter-
nal activities.
Local 92 in its brief defends in part, on the long delay
from Thacker 's June 1983 election until Price and
Rogers' layoffs in February 1984. However , as shown
above , many of the threatening comments by Local 92
agents were made around the time of those layoffs.
Moreover, the record fails to reveal that Local 92 had an
earlier opportunity to take detrimental actions against
Price and Rogers. Obviously , since they were not laid
off between June 1983 and February 1984, Local 92 did
not have an earlier opportunity to refuse them a job re-
ferral.
Additionally, I am not impressed with Local 92's argu-
ment that Price and Rogers failed to specifically request
inclusion on the out-of-work referrals . In the first place,
Local 92 failed to prove that Rogers and Price were not
included in the register for March , August, and Septem-
ber. As noted above, those pages were removed from the
register and are missing . Moreover, Assistant Business
Agent Shaw testified that he could not recall whether he
had entered the names of Price and Rogers in the regis-
ter.
Secondly, it is clear from Shaw's admissions that
shortly after 15 February 1984, Price and Rogers ap-
pealed to him as agent for Local 92 to give them assist-
ance in finding work . Obviously , from that point, Shaw
should have immediately included their names on the
register , 14 or, at the very least, explain the procedure for
inclusion on the out-of-work register . The testimony re-
veals that Shaw did not explain the procedure for regis-
tering before the instant unfair labor charges were filed.
Local 92 should have properly referred Price and
Rogers in accord with its regular referral procedure.
Each should have been referred out in accord with his
respective out-of-work date. By refusing to refer Price
and Rogers from 15 February 1984, Local 92 violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As shown above on nu-
merous occasions after Price and Rogers lost their jobs,
they were told by agents of Local 92 that their employ-
ment was affected by their past protected activities.
2. Additional allegations against Local 92
The complaint further alleges that Local 92 through
admitted agents Goolsby and Shaw, threatened members
14 As shown above, Shaw may have included the names in March,
August, or September . Nevertheless , neither Price nor Rogers was re-
fereed out for work
667
with unspecified reprisals, told a member he was being
penalized for his failure to support the incumbent busi-
ness agent , and told a member he had lost his job be-
cause he had not supported the incumbent business agent
in the last election.
The credited evidence proved that while visiting the
Local in March 1984, Jerry Rogers was told by Eddie
Goolsby that "the reason that we (i.e., Rogers and Price)
had lost our jobs that we didn't support Babe Thacker."
On that same visit , Rogers was told by Sam Shaw, "I
guess you know . . . you just didn't back the right
person."
The above comments by Goolsby and Shaw had the
tendency to restrain and coerce members in the exercise
of protected rights and are violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I was unable to find evidence sup-
porting the General Counsel's allegation that Goolsby
threatened a member with unspecified reprisals in July
1984. Therefore, I find that no violation was proved in
that regard. Plumbers Local 137, 207 NLRB 359 (1973).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Glenn Machine Works, Inc. is a em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 92, AFL-
CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Glenn, by threatening its employees
that they would have to get straight or make it right
with Respondent Local 92 in order to be employed by
Glenn, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent Glenn, by refusing to employ Roger
Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers since about 15 February
1984, has discriminated in regard to hire, tenure and
terms and conditions of employment to encourage or dis-
courage membership in a labor organization in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. Respondent Local 92, by telling its member that the
member was being penalized for his failure to support
the incumbent business agent and by telling its member
that the member had lost his job because he had not sup-
ported the incumbent business agent in the last election,
has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. Respondent Local 92, by refusing to refer for em-
ployment its members Roger Price and Jerry Wayne
Rogers since 15 February 1984 because of their protect-
ed activities , has violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that
they be ordered to cease and desist thereform and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of my findings above, it is apparent that the
backpay, entitlement of Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger
Price must be satisfied jointly and severally by Respond-
ents for periods of joint responsibility . However, these
responsibilities are not common in all respects.
Concerning Respondent Local 92, the affirmative
Order herein recommended requires Local 92 to notify
all employers within the scope of its hiring hall, that the
Union has no objection to the ' employment of Price and
Rogers by Glenn or any other employer, ' and to make
Price and Rogers whole for losses suffered as a result of
Local 92's discrimination from 15 February 1984 until 5
days after Local 92 notifies all appropriate employers
that it has no objection to Price and Rogers being em-
ployed by Glenn or any other employer, less their net
earnings during said period , plus interest in the manner
outlined in F. W Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).15 See H.
H. Robertson Co., 263 NLRB 1344 (1982).
Concerning Respondent Glenn, my findings show that
Price and Rogers were wrongfully denied continued em-
ployment from the time of their respective layoffs on or
near 15 February 1984. Therefore , the recommended
Order requires Glenn to offer to Price and Rogers em-
ployment at their former position or, if those positions no
longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, and to make them whole, with interest, less interim
earnings from the time of the layoff until reemployment
(F. W. Woolworth, supra; Florida Steel Corp., supra). Re-
garding Roger Price, Glenn is directed to return him to
his former position of foreman and, if necessary , remove
from that position persons employed after it terminated
Price See H. H. Robertson Co., supra.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed16
ORDER
A. Respondent Glenn Machine Works, Inc., Colum-
bus, Mississippi , its officers , agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening its employees that its employees will
have to get straight and make it right with their union,
Respondent Local 92, or any other labor organization in
order to be employed by Glenn
(b) Refusing to employ employees because of their
protected activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Local 92 to
the extent their obligations coincide , and individually as
as See generally Isis Plumbing Co , 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
to other periods, make whole Roger Price and Jerry
Wayne Rogers for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against them in the
manner outlined above in "The Remedy."
(b) Offer immediate and full employment to Roger
Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers to the positions formerly
held by them or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges in the
manner set forth above under "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, on request , make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records , social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Columbus , Mississippi , copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."17 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 26 , after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained,for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps, the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
B. Respondent International Association of - Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers , Local 92, AFL-
CLO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling its members that they are being penalized
and that they had lost their jobs because the members
had failed to support the incumbent business agent in the
last election.
(b) Failing and refusing to refer its members for em-
ployment because of its members ' internal union political
activities which are activities protected under the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Glenn make
whole Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers for any loss
of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against them in the manner set forth in the section
of this decision.
(b) Immediately notify Glenn Machine Works, Inc.
and all other employers within the scope of its hiring
hall, in writing, that it has no objection to the employ-
a 7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
GLENN MACHINE WORKS
ment of Roger Price and Jerry Wayne Rogers by Glenn
or any other employer.
(c) Preserve and, on request , make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports , and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Birmingham , Alabama, union hall copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 26, after being signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
18 See fn 17.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
APPROVED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OF
THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
669
WE WILL NOT tell our members or employees that
they have lost their jobs because they failed to support
H. L. Thacker or any other candidate in an internal
union election.
WE WILL NOT imply that our members or employees
are out of work because they did not back H. L.
Thacker or any other person in an internal union elec-
tion.
WE WILL NOT refuse to refer employees for employ-
ment because our members engage in protected internal
union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees or members in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify all employers that are customarily
supplied with employees through our hiring hall includ-
ing Glenn Machine Works, Inc., that we have no objec-
tion to their employing Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger
Price; and WE WILL along with Glenn Machine Works,
Inc., make Jerry Wayne Rogers and Roger Price whole
for all earnings lost by reason of our discrimination
against them , with interest.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON-
WORKERS , LOCAL 92, AFL-CIO
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.