International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 59 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 59
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Local 82 (National Electrical Contractors Associa-
tion, Dayton , Ohio Chapter) and Brack Collier, An
Individual . Case 9-CB-1586
April 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On November 6, 1969, Trial examiner Samuel M.
Singer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent Union had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, 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 made by the
Trial Examiner 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 brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the
Respondent Union, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers , AFL-CIO , Local 82 , Dayton , Ohio, its
officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order,
as herein modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b) of the
Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order:
"Notify the aforementioned Association , in writing,
with a copy to Brack Collier , that the Respondent has
no objection to Collier ' s employment , in accordance
with the valid provisions of the collective -bargaining
agreement between the Respondent and National Electri-
cal Contractors Association , Dayton , Ohio ,' Chapter,
and will not discriminate in his selection for employment
or the employment of any other iob applicant who
is not a member of the Respondent or any other union."
2. Substitute the following for the first and second
indented paragraphs of the Notice:
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to refer any nonunion
member to a job on the same basis as a union
member, as provided in the valid provisions of
our collective-bargaining agreement with National
Electrical Contractors Association, Dayton, Ohio,
Chapter.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any
employer to deny employment to any applicant
for employment because he is not a member of
our Union or any other union, in accordance with
the valid provisions of our collective-bargaining
agreement.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SAMUEL M. SINGER , Trial Examiner : This is a com-
panion case to International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 648 (Foothill Electric Corpo-
ration), Case 9-CB-1585 (herein called Local 648), which
was heard on the same dates (May 26 and August
5, 1969) as the instant case , and which is the subject
of my Decision of this date . The charge was filed and
complaint herein issued on January 13 and March 27,
1969. As in Local 648, the basic issue presented is
whether the Union (here Local 82) violated Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by discriminatorily refusing
to refer the Charging Party (Brack Collier ) for employ-
ment to employers with whom Local 82 had collective-
bargaining agreements because the Charging Party was
not a union member .' As noted in ' Local 648, at the
hearing I granted Local 82's motion to sever this case,
which was originally combined with Local 648 in a
single complaint . As also in Local 648, the hearing,
closed on May 26, 1969 , was reopened for a supplemental
hearing , held on August 5, 1969, for the purpose of
receiving a document (a collective agreement ) proffered
by General Counsel and to afford Respondent an opportu-
nity to present countervailing evidence and contentions.
All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard and to examine and cross -examine witnesses.
Briefs were received from General Counsel and Respond-
ent.
Upon the entire record in this case2 and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION ; LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At all material times, Respondent Local 82 has been
party to a collective agreement with Dayton Division
' These findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon the Trial
Examiner ' s credibility findings, as to which the Respondent Union
excepts It is the Board ' s established policy, however, not to overrule
a Trial Examiner ' s resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as
is not the case here , the preponderance of all the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
' Because of frequent references to Local 648 in the briefs and
Decision herein , a copy of the Local 648 decision is appended to
this Decision Portions of the hearing transcript in Local 648 were
specifically incorporated in this record
R Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated October 22,
1969
182 NLRB No. 5
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA TIONS BOARD
of the Western Ohio Chapter , National Electrical Con
tractors Association (NECA), consisting of employers
receiving or supplying goods or services valued in excess
of $50 ,000 in interstate commerce I find that the Associa-
tion is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that assertion of
jurisdiction here is proper
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Facts
I The exclusive referral procedure under the collective
agreement
Like the collective agreement in Local 648, the govern-
ing agreement between Respondent and the Association
provides that Local 648 "shall be the sole and exclusive
source of referrals of applicants for employment "3
Under the agreement , the Union is required to "select
and refer " applicants on a nondiscriminatory basis from
a register of applicants classified for priority purposes
into four groups Among the criteria for determining
group priority are length of experience in the electrical
construction trade, residence , an examination (given by
an IBEW local ), and past employment under the collec-
tive agreement between the Association and Respondent
The contract also provides that the employer may reject
a referred applicant (with reason in writing if requested
by the Union ) and may bypass the referral procedure
and hire directly if the Union is unable within 48 hours
to fill the request , the employee so hired is deemed
"temporary ," subjedt to replacement "as soon as regis-
tered applicants are available under the referral
procedure " Finally, the Union is required to maintain
an "Out of Work List " and to refer applicants "in
chronological order [as] they register their availability
for employment ," with top priority to those falling within
Group I and lowest priority to those within Group IV 4
2 The refusal to refer Collier
As described in the Local 648 decision and further
shown here , Charging Party Collier , a journeyman wire-
man, laecame a member of Local 1438 , IBEW (Magna,
Utah ) in October 1967 He thereafter worked for Foothill
Electric Corporation at its Middletown, Ohio, project
(within Local 648's territorial jurisdiction) until the end
of June 1968, as a union member on referral from
Local 648 In early August 1968 Collier obtained employ-
ment with Elco Electric Company in the Dayton, Ohio,
area (within Local 82's territorial jurisdiction ) on referral
9 Although the expiration date of the agreement is May I 1968
(before the events here involved ) the hgreement provides that it shall
continue in effect from year to year thereafter unless changed or
tei'minated in the way provided herein Respondent stipulated that
this agreement was operative at all times here material
As in Local 648 the complaint does not allege that the exclusive
referr-il agreement is unlawful
from Respondent Collier testified credibly and without
contradiction that when he applied for the referral,
Local 82 Business Agent Lane "asked me for my paid
up receipt " When Collier produced his Local 1438
dues receipts , Lane requested him to fill out the neces
nary papers authorizing benefits (health and welfare,
pension , and vacation pay) deductions, gave Collier
"a referral to Elco Electric," and directed him to present
the referral slip to the job superintendent Lane testified
that as a holder of a "ticket " or union card, he had
Collier sign his name in Respondent ' s referral book
Collier worked for Elco for about 8 days
Respondent again referred Collier to a job at the
end of August 1968 According to Collier' s credited
and uncontradicted testimony , around August 23 or 24
he went to Respondent ' s office and asked Assistant
Business Agent Travis for work When Travis requested
Collier to produce his dues receipt , Collier did so Collier
was asked whether he "had been working out of 82
before " Collier said he had Travis then checked the
work record of Collier in Local 82's office and wrote
out a referral slip to Hughes-Bechtol Corporation, direct-
ing Collier to see its superintendent (Lewis) Collier
worked for that Company from August 26 to December
6, 1968, when he was laid off on completion of the
work project
As noted in Local 648, in September 1968 (while
Collier was still on the Hughes-Bechtol job), Local
1438 canceled Collier' s membership because, as Local
1438 Financial Secretary Taylor advised him,Taylor
"was in error to begin with, by signing members outside
[Local 1438 's] jurisdiction "
On December 9, 1968, Collier telephoned Respond-
ent's office and talked to Business Agent Lane about
a new job 5 Indicating that he had learned about Collier's
Local 1438 " ticket, being lifted," Lane said that Local
82 did not refer "white ticket [ i e , nonunion] men "
However, Lane supplied Collier with the names of four
employers (Stein Electric, Newco, Castle, and an uniden-
tified employer ) and said , "Go out and see them about
a job," adding that "If they'll put you to work I'll
clear you through the hall "fi Collier admitted that he
did not see any of the four employers , explaining at
the hearing that because of the pendency of his appeal
before the International Union (IBEW ) "to regain [his
Local 1438] ticket" he "didn ' t want to go against any
bylaws by trying to hustle my own job, to put
a mark against me in trying to get my ticket back "
On December 15 or 16, 1968, Collier again telephoned
Lane for a referral Lane again said that "the hall
did not refer white ticket men " Explaining his dire
Collier recalled seeing Lane in the union offi9e several days earlier
(December 6) but Lane denied he was there on that date claiming
that he was out of town in Indianapolis In this instance I credit
Lane whose testimony on this point was supported by objective evidence
in the form of identification cards issued to him in Indianapolis by
the U S Army on the date in question Collier s recollection of the
event appeared hazy and as to some details inconsistent with his prehear
ing statement
' All four employers were covered by Respondent s collective agree
ment with the Association
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 61
financial situation, Collier asked "was there any way
I could get the money ... out of the vacation fund."
Lane said that no money could be withdrawn until
April 1969,' suggesting that Collier make a loan against
his deposits. Adopting this suggestion, on December
17, 1968, Collier obtained a $200 loan against his
account.'
B. Conclusions
1. The applicable legal principles are set forth in
Local 648, supra, fn. 1 Where, as, here, the, collective-
bargaining agreement grants a union exclusive employ-
ment referral rights, it is incumbent upon the union
to accord equal treatment to union and nonunion job
applicants As in Local 648, the basic issue is whether
Respondent's December 1968 refusals to refer Collier
for employment to an employer with whom Respondent
had an exclusive referral agreement was bottomed on
Collier's loss of membership in Local 1438, a sister
local. ,
2. The record shows that while he was a member
of Local 1438, Collier had no problem in obtaining
clearances from Respondent. Thus, when he visited
Respondent's office in early August 1968, Local 82 Busi-
ness Agent Lane referred him to Elco Electric Company.
On Lane's request, Collier produced his Local 1438
dues receipts and was given a referral slip to Elco;
also in accordance with practice, Collier signed Respond-
ent's job referral book. Collier repeated this procedure
at- the end of August 1968' in obtaining work at Hughes-
Bechtol. After inspecting Collier's Local 1438 dues
receipts, Assistant Business Agent Travis wrote out
a referral slip, directing Collier to see Hughes-Bechtol's
superintendent. When laid off from the Hughes-Bechtol
job on December 6, 1968, however, Collier had ceased
to be a Local 1438 member, the union having canceled
his membership because he had not been working within
its territorial jurisdiction. 'When Collier again sought
work referral on December 9, 1968, Business Agent
1 Lane, an administrator of the fund , testified that deposits were
withdrawable only every 6 months-in April and October
6 The above findings ' concerning the December 9 and 15 or 16 conversa-
tions are based on Collier ' s credited testimony While Lane indicated
that he could not recall talking to Collier, on December P or 10, he
added , " I'm not saying that I didn't have" the conversation However,
Lane denied that he "would have said" at any time to Collier or
anyone else , "we do not refer white ticket men through this office"
since he "would have no purpose " in making that remark ",because
with or without a ticket if a man comes for a job, when he comes
for a job he ends up with a job." However; as noted 'infra (sec
B, 3), Respondent does make a significant distinction between "referring"
union men and nonunion men. Thus , while a union cardholder is always
dispatched by referral slip to a specific contractor , a nonunion applicant
is normally provided with only a list of names from whom to solicit
employment Lane admitted that "We don ' t send a nonmember until
he comes in with a letter from the contractor saying that they have
hired him this man They give his name , social security number, and
they have hired him For most of them it occurs that way "
As to the December 15 or 16 conversation, I do not credit Lane's
testimony that he was unaware that Collier's job with Hughes-Bechtol
had ended on December 6, nor that he first learned of this after
the unfair labor practice charge herein was filed (January 13, 1969)
Lane admitted that he "probably" talked to Collier about withdrawals
from the vacation fund, but denied any independent recollection thereof
Lane told him that Local 82 did noi, refer "white ticket
[nonunion] men." ' Instead, Lane merely gave Collier
names of four contractors from whom he might solicit
a job. Collier again requested referral on December
.15 or 16, but without avail, Lane repeating his earlier
explanation that "the hall did not refer white ticket
men." As in Local 648, this is "direct evidence of
a purpose to violate the statute." N.L.R.B. v. Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, Hoisting and Porta-
ble Local 101 [Sub Grade Engineering Co.] 216 F.2d
161, 164 (C. A. 8).
3. In support of Respondent's contention that Collier
was not discriminatorily denied referral, Business Agent
Lane described the operation of Local 82's hiring hall.
According to Lane, Respondent refers all applicants-
union and nonunion-'to a specific, named employer
only if satisfied that they are qualified for the jobs.
Possession of a union card (from Respondent or an
affiliated local) is deemed conclusive proof of qualifica-
tion, but'other evidence (such as a check stub evidencing
prior employment by a recognized contractor) is also
"acceptable." Qualified. applicants register in Respond-
ent's job referral book and are 'immediately sent out
to a job with a referral slip to be presented to the
employer.9 Lane further testified that nonunion appli-
cants who cannot demonstrate qualification are given
a list of contractors who are hiring and told to apply
directly to the employer. If found qualified and hired
by the employer, the nonunion 'applicant reports back
to the union hall and signs appropriate forms (in order
to obtain benefits, such as health and welfare, pension
and vacation), whereupon he is counted as "referred"
and listed as such in Respondent's records.
It is clear that Respondent's so-called referral of
Collier on December, 9-i.e., supplying Collier with the
names of four contractors from whom to-solicit employ-
ment-contravened Respondent's own referral practice.
Business Agent Lane knew that Collier was a.qualified
journeyman wireman. Not only was Collier in possession
of a union card until September 1968 and therefore
presumptively qualified under Lane's own standards (he
was also listed as a Local 1438 member on Respondent's
records), but Lane himself had referred him to Elco
Electric as a qualified employee during the preceding
August. Assistant Business Agent Travis again referred
Collier (later in August) as a qualified worker-this
time to Hughes-Bechtol, where he worked for over
3 months until December 6, 1968.10 Respondent ' s Decem-
ber 9, 1968, failure to, refer 'Collier in the same manner
as other qualified applicants itself buttresses the infer-
° Thus, as previously noted, when Collier held' a Local 1438 card
in August 1968 , he presented his dues receipts , signed Respondent's
referral book , and was immediately. dispatched to a contractor
10 I do not give weight to the self -serving notations made by Lane
on Collier's work record (maintained by Respondent) quoting Elco
and Hughes -Bechtol representatives that Collier "doesn't know the
trade" and is "too slow " Lane admitted that he obtained this information
from the employers and noted it on Collier ' s work record after the
unfair labor practice charges were filed Furthermore , it is clear that
Respondent did not , act upon this information in refusing to refer
Collier to a specific employer, since it never said so, its refusal being
expressly predicated on'Collier's no longer being a union member , ,
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ence that its actions was discriminatorily motivated by
the fact that Collier no longer was a union member.
Contrary to Respondent's contention, the fact that
Lane furnished Collier with a list of contractors did
not justify its refusal to dispatch Collier to a specific
employer in the same manner as union members. Collier
was entitled to the same treatment from the hiring
hall as other qualified applicants. There is a significant
difference between dispatching a job applicant directly
to a designated employer and merely providing him
with a list of names from whom to solicit employment.
While it may be, as Respondent contends, that construc-
tion work in the Dayton area was at the time plentiful"
and that employees could readily obtain employment
directly from contractors, this did not justify preferential
treatment, i.e.; specific referral-in effect assignment
to a sure job-accorded to union cardholders. 12
Finally, it is immaterial that the record here establishes
that some nonunion employees (including several former
Local 1438 members like Collier) were among those
serving employers covered by Respondent's collective
agreement at the time of the refusal to refer Collier
to a specific employer.' To begin 'with, the fact that
nonunion employees were working may signify nothing
more than that nonunion men had been able to obtain
jobs in a period of full employment or that they were
still working on jobs which for one reason or another
they already held. The crux of the, violation here is
that Respondent gave preferential referral treatment to
union members over Collier because he was no longer
a union member. In any event, a discriminatory motive
otherwise established is not dispelled by a showing
that a union or employer did not also discriminate against
others. See N.L.R.B. v. Local 369, International Hod
Carriers' etc. [A.C. Frommeyer Co.], 240 F.2d 539,
543 (C.A. 3); N.L.R.B. v. Nabors, 196 F.2d 272, 275-276
(C.A. 5).
4. Like Local 648, Respondent requests (br. pp. 2-6)
that I reconsider the propriety of my July 7, 1969,
order granting General Counsel's motion to reopen the
record to receive evidence (the collective-bargaining
agreement containing the exclusive referral system) and
directing a supplemental hearing to enable Respondent
to present its evidence and contentions. For the reasons
stated in Local 648, I reject Respondent's contention
that General Counsel's motion "should have been
denied" and that the supplemental hearing held on
August 5, 1969, was improper.
I conclude that Respondent's December 9 and Decem-
ber. 15 or 16 refusals to refer. Collier for employment
to contractors with whom Respondent had an exclusive
referral agreement were violative of Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 1. By discriminatorily refusing to refer Brack Collier
for employment on December 9 and 15 or 1,6, 1969,
to an employer with whom Respondent had an exclusive
referral agreement because Collier was not a union
member, Respondent has caused employer discrimina-
tion against an employee in violation of Section 8(a)
(3) of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (2) and 1(A) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
3
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall further recommend that Respondent notify
potential job applicants, as well as the Association and
Brack Collier, in writing, that it will not discriminate
against Collier or any other job applicant in selecting
or referring them for employment through its hiring
hall procedures, because of nonunion membership. 'I
shall also recommend that Respondent make Brack Col-
lier whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him. The amount of backpay
shall be computed in accordance with the formula
approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Since the unlawful conduct of Respondent indicates
a purpose to limit the lawful rights of employees, and
the danger of its continued and further commission
is reasonably foreseeable, I shall also recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from causing or attempting
to cause any employer to deny employment in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make
the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
" Lane testified that the Union's "Out of Work List" (used only
in periods of less than full employment or "if we actually have a
reason to have people out of work") had not been in use for at
least 5 years
12 Respondent claims (br p 7) that Collier's "admitted neglect to
contact contractors [named by Lane] belie[s] an individual who
is particularly anxious to get to work " Assuming, arguendo, that Collier
was under an obligation to make such "contact"-in the face of an
exclusive referral system such as here in operation-his failure to
diligently seek employment may be a question to be determined in
the compliance proceeding Cf Shawnee Industries, Inc , 140 NLRB
1451, 1453, modified on other grounds 333 F 2d 222 (C A 10)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local 82, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Denying employment or referral to employment
to any employee or potential employee because he is
not a member of any union.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Dayton Divi-
sion of the Western Ohio Chapter, National Electrical
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
Contractors Association (NECA), or any of its members,
to deny employment, in violation of Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc
ing employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Make whole Brack Collier for any loss of pay
he may have suffered because of the discrimination
against him, in the manner set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy "
(b) Notify the aforementioned Association, in writing,
with a copy to Brack Collier, that Respondent has
no objection to Collier's employment and will not dis
criminate in his selection for employment or the employ-
ment of any other job applicant who is not a member
of Respondent or any other union
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all records pertaining to employment through its hiring
halls and all records relevant and necessary to compli-
ance with above paragraph (a)
(d) Post at its business office, hiring halls, and meeting
places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix "13 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by Respondent's official representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial
(e) Mail signed copies of the attached notice to the
aforementioned Association, for posting, it being willing,
at its business office or offices located within the geo-
graphical area of Respondent's jurisdiction or operations
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 14
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
63
Court of Appeals enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations
Board
14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify said Regional
Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL JOB APPLICANTS USING OUR HIRING
HALL, WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
LoCAL 82
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to refer any nonunion
member to a job on the same basis as a union
member
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any
employer to deny employment to any applicant
for employment because he is not a member of
our Union or any other union
WE WILL reimburse Brack Collier for any loss
of earnings suffered by him because of our failure
and refusal to refer him for work
WE WILL notify Dayton Division of the Western
Ohio Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Asso-
ciation (NECA), in writing , that we have no objecr
tion to the employment of Brack Collier, and we
will send a copy of that notice to Brack Collier
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL
WORKERS , AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 82
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686