International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 492 (Fire & Ice Productions, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 24, 2019

28-CB-207136 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 24, 2019)

JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 492
(FIRE AND ICE PRODUCTIONS, INC.)
Respondent/Union
and Case 28–CB-207136
BILL KELMAN,
AN INDIVIDUAL
Charging Party.
Rodolfo Martinez, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Shane Youtz, Esq., for Respondent.
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
AMITA BAMAN TRACY, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves allegations by the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) that the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 492 (the Union or Local 492 or Respondent) operates a de facto
exclusive hiring hall for its show and movie production work in the state of New Mexico and
maintained and enforced a rule which has no representational function. Furthermore, the
General Counsel alleges that the Union failed to effectively inform member and nonmember
hiring hall users of this rule and the consequences of violating the rule. This rule, known as the
“double-roster rule”, states:
Any person on another Teamster roster in the industry is ineligible to be placed or
to maintain roster status in New Mexico.
As discussed herein, I find that the Union’s double-roster rule is lawful. Furthermore, I find that
the Union did not otherwise violate the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) as alleged.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bill Kelman, an individual (Kelman or the Charging Party) filed the original charge on
September 29, 2017.1 The Regional Director issued a complaint and notice of hearing on

1 All dates hereinafter are in 2017, unless otherwise noted.
JD(SF)–17–19
2
October 24, 2018.2 The Union filed a timely answer denying all material allegations.3 A hearing
was held on January 29, 2019 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The amended complaint alleges the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on or
about August 25, by enforcing an unlawful rule, thereby removing Kelman from a group 2 5
seniority roster and placing him on a group 6 seniority roster. Moreover, the complaint alleges
the Union failed to effectively inform its member and nonmember hiring hall users of its rule and
the consequences of violating the rule. The Union denies that it operates a de facto exclusive
hiring hall, but instead maintains a referral list for show and movie production work. The Union
also denies it violated the Act in any respect even assuming it operates a de facto exclusive 10

2 The General Counsel moved to amend complaint paragraphs 5(a) and 5(c) at the outset of
the hearing (General Counsel’s Exhibit (GC Exh.) 2). The Union opposed the amendment of
paragraph 5(a), alleging that the General Counsel’s theory of the case had changed such that the
Union was identified as a de facto exclusive hiring hall rather than a non-exclusive hiring hall as
originally pled. At the hearing, I granted the General Counsel’s motion to amend both
paragraphs of the complaint. As I explained during the hearing, I determined that the Union had
received enough notice of the General Counsel’s intention to amend the complaint (on January
16 and 25, 2019), and thus, permitted the amendment but granted the Union additional time, if
needed, to prepare its response to the amendment, specifically the type of hiring hall at issue
(Transcript (Tr.) 10-11). The Union did not request any additional time.
3 The Union generally alleges in its answer that the complaint is untimely, but the Union set
forth no specific allegations and did not litigate this issue during the hearing. As such, I find that
the Union has waived this defense. See United Government Security Officers of America
International, 367 NLRB No. 5, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2018). Similarly, the Union alleged in its
answer that the allegations should be referred to the Union’s internal dispute resolution
procedure. However, the Union did not set forth any arguments to support this claim, and thus, I
will not address this defense.
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
3
hiring hall. On the entire record,4 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,5
and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Union,6 I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACTS
5
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Fire and Ice Productions, Inc. (the Employer) has been a
corporation with offices and places of business throughout the United States, including an office
and place of business in Park City, Utah and has been engaged in film production. During the 10
12-month period ending September 29, the Employer, in conducting its business operations,
purchased and received at its facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Utah. The Union admits, and I find, that Fire and Ice Productions, Inc. is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
15
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
During all material times, the Union admits, and I find, that it is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
20

4 The transcripts in this case are generally accurate, but I make the following corrections to
the record: Tr. 5, Line (L.) 8: “Anita” should be “Amita”; Tr. 54, L. 17: “it’s” should be “is”.
5 Citations to the record are included to aid review, and not exhaustive or exclusive. In
making my findings regarding the credible evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, I
considered the testimonial demeanor of such witnesses, the content of the testimony and the
inherent probabilities based on the record as a whole. In certain instances, I may have credited
some but not all, of what the witnesses said. “Nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial
decisions than to believe some and not all” of the testimony of a witness. Jerry Ryce Builders,
352 NLRB 1262 fn. 2 (2008), citing NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749, 754 (2d
Cir. 1950), revd. on other grounds 340 U.S. 474 (951). See also J. Shaw Associates, LLC, 349
NLRB 939, 939–940 (2007). This is particularly the case where the credited portions of the
witness’ testimony are “consistent with the testimony of credited witnesses or with documentary
evidence,” constitute an admission against interest, or are relied upon by the party against which
a particular issue is being resolved. Upper Great Lakes Pilots, 311 NLRB 131, fn. 2 (1993). In
addition, I have carefully considered the testimony in contradiction to my factual findings, but I
have discredited such testimony, either as having been in conflict with credited documentary or
testimonial evidence, or because it was in and of itself incredible and untrustworthy. My
credibility findings are reflected within the Findings of Facts.
6 Additional abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s
exhibit; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s posthearing brief; and “R. Br.” for Respondent’s
posthearing brief.
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
4
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union’s Hiring Hall Procedures
The Union operates a hiring hall which makes available and promotes a work force of 5
drivers and wranglers who work on the set of shows and movies for production companies
filming in New Mexico. These individuals are hired by production companies after the Union
and production companies enter into Memorandums of Agreement (MOA) per show or film.
Thereafter, the production company uses the Union’s Industry Experience Roster, which is
comprised of groupings of individuals based on factors set forth in writing by the Union, to hire 10
drivers and wranglers. In addition, to the MOAs and union procedures, the terms and conditions
of employment for those hired by the production companies via the Union’s hiring hall are set
forth in the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), dated August 1, 2015, between Producer, a
multiemployer bargaining group (which consists of numerous production, entertainment and film
companies) and the Studio Transportation Drivers, Local #399 (Local 399) (Jt. Exh. 1).7 15
1. The Union’s Industry Experience Roster
Melissa Malcom (Malcom) became the Union’s business agent in January 2017 (Tr. 30,
118).8 Malcom’s duties include ensuring the MOAs with the various production companies are 20
signed and the production companies are abiding by the MOAs. She also ensures that the
Union’s bylaws are followed along with handling grievances and office work (Tr. 55, 116, 119-
120, 123-124). Malcom confirms that hiring hall users maintain current and appropriate licenses,
updates hiring hall users contact information and handles all paperwork (Tr. 55-56, 119-120,
134). Malcom testified that the Union maintains a referral list and believed that the Union is not 25
a hiring hall since the production companies make the final decision as to whom to hire (Tr. 60,
120-121, 133). 9

7 This CBA is also known as “the Black Book” (Tr. 14, 46). Paragraph 30 of the CBA,
titled “Distant Location Conditions and Wages” states:
When unit working on distant locations in the thirteen (13) western states (Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming) and the western Canadian provinces of
British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan [… .] The parties agree that the
aggregate rate for wages and fringes in the thirteen (13) western states shall
equate to the aggregate rate for wages and fringes as stated herein [… .] In hiring
personnel at the location, the Producer will use its best efforts to notify the
business agent for the Local Union involved at least seventy-two (72) hours in
advance and will consult with said business agent regarding the selection of
qualified local hires provided the Producer will make the final decision.
(Jt. Exh. 1).
8 Respondent admits, and I find that during the relevant time period, Malcom is an agent of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
9 Malcom testified in a clear and logical manner, and I found her overall testimony to be
credible except on a few minor issues which I will address. Malcom never wavered under cross-
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
5
Effective January 1, 2016 (Jt. Exh. 2), the Union’s Industry Experience Roster and out-
of-work registration procedures set forth the rules and qualification for individuals to register for
work with the Union, including the groupings of persons on the hiring roster. These January 1,
2016 procedures were mailed to all active hiring hall members on November 15, 2015, including
Charging Party Kelman (R. Exh. 2; Tr. 135-138, 183-184). 5
The Industry Experience Roster is created by grouping individuals into three categories:
group 1, group 2 and group 3 (Jt. Exh. 2; Tr. 60).10 To be in group 1, an individual needs to have
been on the Industry Experience Roster as of January 1, 2007, and did not need a commercial
driver’s license (CDL) but needed 2,000 hours worked (Tr. 61; Jt. Exh. 2). After 2007, to be in10
group 1, the Union required the individual to have a CDL with passenger endorsement, have a
valid Department of Transportation (DOT) medical card, submit a copy of their motor vehicle
record (MVR), be a resident of New Mexico, and complete 5 years on the Industry Experience
Roster (Jt. Exh. 2; Tr. 61). To be in group 2, an individual must maintain a CDL with passenger
endorsement, have a valid DOT medical card, submit a copy of their MVR, be a resident of New 15
Mexico, and complete 2 years on the Industry Experience Roster (Jt. Exh. 2; Tr. 62). To be in
group 3, an individual must maintain a CDL with passenger endorsement, have a valid DOT
medical card, submit a copy of their MVR, and be a resident of New Mexico (Jt. Exh. 2; Tr. 62).
In addition, since the Union closed its “books” or stopped adding individuals to its Industry
Experience Roster in July 2015, to be in group 3, an individual needed to be in that group prior 20
to then (Tr. 62, 64). Individuals advance to a higher group after a certain number of years on the
roster of the prior grouping as well as working in the industry for at least 1 calendar day per year.
Within each grouping, each member has the same level of seniority (Tr. 50).
In addition to groups 1, 2 and 3 comprising the Industry Experience Roster, the Union 25
maintains a group 6 (also known as the supplemental group) (Tr. 50, 60).11 Group 6 consists of
individuals who have not met requirements to be placed on the group 3 roster such as
maintaining New Mexico residency, a CDL, and/or obtaining a 30-day permit period12 (Tr. 63).
The Union also keeps an exhausted list which consists of “casuals” who are referred when
groups 1, 2, 3 and 6 are exhausted (Tr. 65). These “casuals” are non-members who pay a fee to 30
the Union (Tr. 65).
As for the order of hiring, the procedures set forth in the Union’s Industry Experience
Roster states,
35
The Local Union will inform those signatory Producers involved in the
production of motion pictures in the state of New Mexico of the Industry
Experience Roster and that referral will be first from Group 1, then from Group 2,

examination and testified consistently with corroboration from documentary evidence. Unlike
Kelman, Malcom provided specific details regarding her conversations with Kelman and her
recollection of events in July and August 2017.
10 At the time of the hearing, 142 individuals were on the Union’s group 1 roster, 45
individuals on the group 2 roster, and 8 individuals on the group 3 roster (Tr. 166-167).
11 All individuals in groups 1, 2, 3, and 6 pay dues to the Union (Tr. 62, 64).
12 A 30-day permit period is when a member works for 30 days after obtaining a CDL (Tr.
63).
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
6
then from Group 3, except that the Producer may request the Group 2 list if 5% or
less of Group 1 is available and may request the Group 3 list if less than 5% or
less of Group 2 is available. Additionally, the Producer may request persons by
name off the Industry Experience Roster because of their special experience, skill
and qualifications necessary to operate specialized equipment.5
(Jt. Exh. 2).
2. The MOAs between the Union and Production Companies
10
In addition to the Union’s procedures and applicable CBA, the MOAs signed between the
Union and production companies also covers the terms and conditions of employment of drivers
and wranglers during each show for which the production company seeks to hire (Jt. Exh. 4; Tr.
31, 46, 113-114).13 Generally, most production companies sign MOAs with the Union when
seeking to employ drivers and wranglers in New Mexico for a show or movie (Tr. 33). Through 15
these MOAs, the production companies agree to hire available drivers and wranglers from the
Union’s Industry Experience Roster, but it is agreed that the production companies will make the
final decision on who they wish to hire (Jt. Exh. 4; Tr. 59, 122). The MOAs state:
1. The Company agrees to hire available drivers and wranglers from Teamsters Local 20
492 Industry Experience Roster as follows:
(a) All drivers and wranglers, so long as qualified, will be hired from the group 1 list
on the Industry Experience Roster. When 95% of the group 1 drivers listed are
employed/unavailable, or there are no qualified drivers or wranglers then the
Company may hire from those drivers or wrangles listed in group 2.25
(b) When 95% of the group 2 drivers listed are employed/unavailable, or there are no
qualified drivers or wranglers then the Company may hire from those drivers or
wranglers listed in group 3.
(c) In the event there are insufficient available, qualified persons from such related
job classifications grouping who are in the respective Industry grouping 1, 2, 3, 30
Supplemental (permit) group, or Exhausted List to meet the employment
requirements of the Producer in such respective related job classifications
grouping, then the Producer may secure employees from any source.
(d) The Company agrees to notify the Union in advance or, at the latest, at the time of
hire of any Teamster hired in the following positions to ensure they are in good 35
standing: Insert Car Drivers and Animal Trainers/Handlers. This does not limit
the company from hiring who they wish to hire, only to let us know that they are
hiring them.
(e) The Union will refer, through its electronic call board, the appropriate list of
available drivers and wranglers, not individuals. The Company retains the right to 40
make final decisions as to hiring any individual driver or wrangler from the
respective group List supplied by the Local Union in accordance with subsections
(a), (b) and (c) above.

13 The MOAs presented at the hearing were nearly identical except for the names of the
production companies and shows (Jt. Exh. 4).
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
7
(Jt. Exh. 4; Tr. 66-69, 121-122, 125).14 The production company makes its request in written
form for any lower grouping list such as group 2 and 3 (Tr. 66-67). But on occasion members
from another Teamster union may work in New Mexico by paying dobie dues (or service fee)
only (Tr. 117, 121-122).15 Malcom testified, in relevant part as follows,
5
Q. And isn't it true that under the memorandums of agreement that the Union
has with production companies, that production companies cannot hire outside the
grouping system unless the driver they want to hire is driving special equipment,
or driving an above-the-line individual and has been requested by name?
A. Yes.10
Q. And isn't it true that transportation captains can ask for people by name all
they want, but if you're not into that particular grouping for that person, they can't
hire that driver unless the driver falls within either special equipment or personal
driver exceptions?
A. Yes.15
Q. And the production companies are required to use the Union's grouping
system if they sign a memorandum of agreement, correct?
A. Yes.
(Tr. 68-69).20
Malcom also testified that companies may hire workers not on the Union’s Industry
Experience Roster but would then have to pay a fee. Malcom testified,
Q. And is it in that experience true, like yourself, that sometimes they hire off 25
the street or hire not using the referral list?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you give us some examples?
A. I can. We have a low-budget agreement that says they can hire -- if they
want to hire anybody that they want, then all that's required is that they pay us a 30
service fee during their time of employment. They can seek employees by
whatever means they choose. We had a show that came in for about two weeks,
and they brought -- they hired a dispatcher that was not one of my members. We
charged her a service fee. I can give you -- we had -- there's a mechanic on a
show. We didn't have any mechanics. They hired him off the street. After he 35
was hired, we put him on our list, on our exhausted list.

14 The Union maintains an electronic call board where any driver or wrangler who wants to
work makes themselves available through the electronic call board (Tr. 60, 67). When a
production company seeks to hire, the Union gives the production company the ability to view
the electronic system, see the groups by seniority available for work and the job classifications
(drivers, dispatchers, mechanics, and wranglers), and then the production company picks who
they want (Tr. 60, 66-68, 116).
15 Malcom defined dobie dues as “a service fee that a union member would pay to another
local jurisdiction if they went into their jurisdiction to work” (Tr. 156-157). The union
member is “visiting” the jurisdiction, and not seeking to join that union by submitting
qualification forms for purposes of placement on a roster (Tr. 157).
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
8
(Tr. 121-122).16 In addition, Walter Maestas (Maestas), the Union’s secretary treasurer, testified
that the Union could file a grievance and seek liquidated damages if a production company who
has a contract with the Union hires workers improperly (i.e., not through the Union’s lists) (Tr.
32-33).17 Maestas also testified that generally production companies do not circumvent the
Union when hiring drivers but there are instances where drivers are “hired off the street” (Tr. 5
33).18
B. The Union’s Removal of Kelman from its Industry Experience Roster Group 2
The Union’s procedures, effective January 1, 2016, contain the following rule (double-10
roster rule):
3) […] Any person on another Teamster roster in the industry is ineligible to be
placed or to maintain roster status in New Mexico. […]
15
(Jt. Exh. 2).19 This rule means that individuals on the Union’s Industry Experience Roster may
not be on the rosters of any other Teamster local but those on the Union’s Industry Experience
Roster may still work outside of New Mexico at other Teamster locals by only paying dobie dues
(Tr. 69). Also, this rule means that Teamster members from other locals may not be added to the
Union’s Industry Experience Roster if they are rostered with any other Teamster local. 20
The origins of the double-roster rule date back to 2015. In 2015 members of the Union’s
film and movie unit raised concerns about not being hired for in-state work while Teamster
members from other states were coming to New Mexico for work as well as continuing to work
in their home states (Tr. 188). The Union members found it unfair to lose work to those coming 25
from out-of-state while they were New Mexico residents who had worked in the movie industry
for many years (Tr. 188-189). By being in group 1 on multiple Teamster’s rosters, individuals

16 Later, when testifying on direct examination, Malcom seemingly contradicted her prior
testimony by stating that companies could hire anyone regardless of the MOAs (Tr. 133). I do
not credit this portion of her testimony because it is not supported by a strict reading of the
MOAs where the company agrees to hire workers from the Union’s lists, and only after
exhausting such lists may the company hire from any “source” (Jt. Exh. 4). Her testimony is also
refuted by Maestas who stated that production companies must abide by the agreed upon MOAs
or face a grievance from the Union. In addition, Malcom’s definition of the term “exclusive” is
not supported by the law (Tr. 132-133). Much of her responses were premised on a
misunderstanding of the term “exclusive” hiring hall.
17 Respondent admits, and I find that during the relevant time period Maestas is an agent of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
18 I find Maestas’ testimony to be credible as he testified honestly, assertively, provided
details to conversations he had with Kelman, and had knowledge of the general hiring practices
between the production companies and the Union’s Industry Experience Roster. Moreover, his
testimony was not contradicted by any other evidence.
19 The term “roster,” although not defined but as used in this hiring hall context, indicates that
an individual is on a list based on certain qualifications to be hired. The terms “roster” and “list”
can be interchanged.
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
9
from other states would come into New Mexico for work when work was not available in their
home state thereby leaving the Union’s New Mexico residents without jobs (Tr. 189).
Warren (Trey) E. White III (White), the Union’s recording secretary, was part of a
committee established to address these complaints.20 White testified that the Union “tighten[ed]” 5
their residency rules (Tr. 189). In addition, the Union sent its rules to an attorney with Local 399
to get his advice (Tr. 182). Based on the attorney’s advice, the Union added the double-roster
rule (Tr. 139-140, 182-183). Local 399 suggested that the Union’s Industry Experience Roster
should be limited to motion picture work in New Mexico, performed by New Mexico residents.
Local 399 also suggested that individuals be rostered and remain rostered as long as they are not 10
on another Teamster roster in the industry which “demonstrates the individual’s commitment to
work exclusively in New Mexico” (R. Exh. 4).
In addition, Maestas and Malcom also testified that the double-roster rule exists to protect
work in New Mexico for New Mexico residents (Tr. 49). Malcom explained that the double-15
roster rule helps to keep an experienced, qualified work force in New Mexico (Tr. 161). Maestas
explained that if the Union did not maintain its double-roster rule, drivers and wranglers from all
over the country could “flood” the grouping system such that they could be on multiple group
lists, and the Union’s members would likely not be able to obtain work in New Mexico.
Maestas, Malcom and White stated that if Local 399 members were permitted to roster with the 20
Union’s members, the production companies would hire Local 399 members because they would
be more familiar as having likely worked with them in the Los Angeles area (Tr. 51-52, 161,
189-192). Malcom and White also explained that if those on the Union’s Industry Experience
Roster are allowed to roster with other Teamster’s locals, the Union would need to permit other
Teamster individuals to roster in the Union’s jurisdiction (Tr. 164, 197). White testified that the 25
double-roster rule “completely” stopped out-of-state residents from taking jobs from the
members of the Union as the out-of-state residents could no longer roster on the Union’s lists
(Tr. 200-202).
Kelman, a New Mexico resident and film industry driver, has been a member of the 30
Union since 2012 when he was placed in group 3 of the Industry Experience Roster (Tr. 78).21 In

20 I credit the entirety of White’s testimony as he was highly credible. White testified in a
conversational manner which resonated with authenticity and truth. His testimony clearly was
not scripted. What I found most striking about White’s testimony was when he was asked about
the origination of the double-roster rule, White raised his voice with incredulity when responding
to this line of questioning. He noted the irony of Kelman’s complaint considering the reasons
the members wanted the double-roster rule. This key portion of his testimony exemplified his
credibility.
21 I do not credit Kelman’s testimony for several reasons. Kelman testified vaguely when
responding to questions on both direct and cross-examination. On cross-examination, Kelman
became even more evasive, defensive to the point of responding with an antagonistic rhetorical
question and was not forthcoming as to his knowledge of events. Despite receiving the double-
roster rule at least twice, Kelman claimed not to know of the rule’s existence. Regarding his
conversations with Malcom, Kelman did not provide any specific details as to what occurred but
insisted he informed her he planned to work in Utah and blamed Malcom for not explained dobie
dues and rostering. I credit Malcom’s testimony that Kelman never told her he planned to work
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
10
late June, Kelman sought to advance from group 3 to group 2 with the Union. Kelman
completed the Union’s required paperwork to support his move to group 2 and received from the
Union its January 2016 procedures which included the double-roster rule; he had also received
the notice of the double-roster rule in November 2015 (Tr. 93, 143-145; R. Exh. 5).22
5
Thereafter, Kelman came into the union office on or about July 12 and spoke to Malcom
(Tr. 147-148). Kelman told Malcom that he had worked in many facets of the film industry and
that he was offered work in another state and wanted to know when he would be eligible to move
to the next group in the Union (Tr. 148). Malcom informed Kelman that he would be moved to
group 2 on August 3 (Tr. 148). Malcom testified that Kelman never told her he planned to work 10
in Utah or the type of work he would be performing; he simply told her he was going out of the
state (Tr. 148).23
While he actively sought to move from group 3 to group 2 on the Union’s Industry
Experience Roster, Kelman sought industry work with Teamsters Local 222 (Local 222) in Utah15
(Tr. 80-81). Kelman looked for work in Utah because he had recently had hip surgery and
Malcom told him that it would be “very slow” for hiring of any group other than group 1 (Tr.
82). Thus, when a work opportunity arose through Local 222 in July 2017, Kelman completed
paperwork on July 18, participated in drug testing, paid a $25 fee, and sent pay stubs to support
his claimed work experience (Tr. 81-82). In his paperwork for Local 222, Kelman wrote that he 20
was not registered anywhere else (R. Exh. 1). Kelman testified that after he worked 40 hours, he
would pay them dobie dues which are the service fees (Tr. 82). Local 222 placed Kelman in
their highest experience roster level due to his work experience, as proven by his pay stubs (Tr.
86-90, 152).24 Kelman would then pay working dues, rather than dobie dues or the service fee
(Tr. 158-159). 25

in Utah for another Teamster local in the industry. In all, Kelman’s testimony cannot be relied
upon.
22 Kelman testified inconsistently and not credibly regarding his knowledge of the Union’s
grouping categories. For example, Kelman testified that he was unaware of his grouping
category with the Union as “there was no clarity” and he simply received calls to work (Tr. 79).
Kelman also testified that he did not know what the terms roster or its variations meant, or how
the rostering process functioned with the Union (Tr. 108). Kelman testified that he could not
recall receiving the union rules. At the hearing, Kelman testified that he did not know about the
Union’s double-roster rule in July and August 2017 (Tr. 93). Later, however, Kelman explained
that in July 2017, he understood the double-roster rule to forbid being a member of another
Teamsters local (Tr. 94-95).
23 In contrast to Malcom’s testimony, Kelman stated that he had not told anyone in the Union
that he planned to work in Utah until July when he spoke to Malcom (Tr. 80-81). According to
Kelman, he told Malcom while speaking to her on the phone in July that he was “thinking about
leaving town to go work in Utah” (Tr. 81-82). Kelman stated that he could not recall what
Malcom said in response (Tr. 81). Malcom denied Kelman told her that he planned to work for
the Teamster local in Utah. Based on my overall credibility determination, I credit Malcom’s
testimony over Kelman’s
24 Malcom testified about her conversation with the business agent of Local 222 regarding
Kelman’s roster status with the Utah Teamster’s local (Tr. 151). These conversations were
hearsay, uncorroborated and not relevant to the issues to be resolved in this complaint. See, e.g.,
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
11
On or about August 17, Malcom learned from Kelman that he had been working for
Local 222 (Tr. 71-72, 148, 170). When Malcom learned that Kelman was on Local 222’s roster,
Malcom told Kelman he could not be on two rosters (Tr. 148-149, 156). Kelman disagreed with
Malcom, claiming that he was not rostered with Local 222 (Tr. 150). Malcom told Kelman she
needed to verify with Local 222’s business agent that he was not rostered in Utah (Tr. 150).25 5
Based on documents Malcom received from Local 222, she concluded that Kelman had been
rostered with Local 222 while also being rostered with the Union (Tr. 152-153).
As a result, Malcom removed Kelman from the Union’s Industry Experience Roster
group 2, and placed him on the supplemental or group 6 roster (Tr. 72, 84).26 The members who 10
are on the group 6 list are not eligible to be rostered with the Union for various reasons such as
lacking a commercial driver’s license or are non-residents. On August 21, Kelman emailed
Malcom regarding their recent phone conversation (Jt. Exh. 5). Kelman stated that he did not
roster with Local 222 in Utah in July but only paid dobie dues to qualify for work there. Malcom
responded the next day, writing that the problem was that he was on two rosters thereby violating 15
the Union’s double-roster rule which states that “any person on another Teamster roster in the
industry is ineligible to be placed or to maintain roster status in New Mexico” (citing to Jt. Exh.
2). Malcom confirmed that Kelman had been rostered or listed on Local 222’s group A list.
Malcom wrote, “We, however, can never allow one of our grouped members to take work away
from other rostered movie workers in another [u]nion. I am sure if you were here and found out 20
we let someone from Utah come here and immediately get on the group 1 list and take a job, you
would not appreciate that one bit. We don’t have a problem with you paying dobie dues to other
locals, the issue is you were ROSTERED AS A GROUP A in Utah, who then dispatched you
to Montana” (Jt. Exh. 5, emphasis in original). Malcom explained that Kelman falsely informed
Local 222 that he was not registered with another Teamsters local and provided 7 years of 25
payroll documentation to be placed on Local 222’s group A list (See R. Exh. 1).27 Malcom

Auto Workers Local 651 (General Motors), 331 NLRB 479, 481 (2000) (uncorroborated
testimony properly rejected as unreliable hearsay).
25 Malcom testified that she told Kelman he could retain his group 2 status if he removed
himself from the roster with Local 222, but that he refused, stating he needed to work (Tr. 150).
Kelman does not recall Malcom offering this to him (Tr. 102). Regarding whether Malcom
offered to permit Kelman to retain his group 2 roster status, I do not credit Malcom’s testimony
since proximate evidence as well as Maestas’ testimony does not support her hearing testimony.
Malcom’s November 13 affidavit to the Board agent for this proceeding does not mention such
an offer to Kelman and neither does Malcom’s November 3 position statement during this
investigation (Tr. 174-175). In addition, Maestas testified that Malcom had been brought in as
the business agent, in part, because the prior business agent was criticized by members for not
consistently enforcing the rules. Considering such context, it does not seem likely that Malcom
offered to resolve Kelman’s double-rostering violation. Thus, Malcom’s claim that she offered
Kelman to retain his group 2 roster status cannot be credited.
26 Kelman claims he was removed from the “film department” and made a “member in bad
standing” in August 2017 (Tr. 83). The evidence does not support Kelman’s claim (R. Exh. 3).
27 In response to the following question on Local 222’s registration for employment form,
“Are you registered elsewhere?”, Kelman wrote, ‘No” (R. Exh. 1; Tr. 90). Kelman claimed that
Local 222’s business agent knew he was a member of the Union in New Mexico, and so Kelman
assumed the question asked if he was registered anywhere else other than the Union (Tr. 90-91).
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
12
stated that the work rules must be enforced and that he had lost his group 2 roster position with
the Union. The Union later sent Malcom’s response to Kelman via certified letter on its
letterhead (Jt. Exh. 6).
Kelman also spoke to Maestas about his removal from group 2, but Maestas told him his 5
only recourse was to appeal the decision to the Union’s executive board (Tr. 83-84). Maestas
testified that he also explained to Kelman on August 29 that the prior business agent Moises
Ortega (Ortega) had been criticized by the members for being “lenient” regarding the Union’s
rules, and thus, the Union hired Malcom as the Union’s business agent who has movie industry
experience and enforces the rules strictly (Tr. 39).10
Thereafter in late August, Kelman sought to appeal Malcom’s decision (Tr. 84). First
Kelman explained to Malcom in an email that he mistakenly marked that he was not on any other
roster which he thought referred to another union’s roster, other than the Union. In addition,
Kelman wrote that he paid dobie dues and only provided additional information to prove his 15
experience to meet Local 222’s experience requirement. Kelman wrote, “I mentioned to you I
was going to try to work out of state and you said I had to pay [d]obie dues” (Jt. Exh. 7).
Malcom responded, “As I have explained numerous times, this is not about “dobie dues.” This is
about roster placement” (Jt. Exh. 7).
20
Malcom responded by offering several possibilities to Kelman. She offered to waive
certain fees if he wanted to transfer his membership to Local 222, and he could be on the
Union’s exhausted list. Malcom also offered that if Kelman did not want to transfer his
membership, he could be on the Union’s group 6 list while he is rostered with Local 222 (R.
Exh. 7). 25
On September 7, Kelman appealed the decision to remove him from the Union’s group 2
roster to the Union’s executive board (Jt. Exh. 8). On September 15, Malcom responded via
written form to Kelman’s appeal to the Union’s executive board; Malcom clarified that Kelman
always remained a member in good standing with the Union but had violated the double-roster 30
rule (R. Exh. 7).28 On September 16, the executive board met and discussed Kelman’s appeal
(Tr. 40). On September 29, the Union responded to Kelman’s appeal by sending a letter to all
union members (Jt. Exh. 9; Tr. 73). The Union reaffirmed its rule that no rostered or grouped
persons may be placed on another Teamster roster, and that this rule is also found in the Black
Book at Section VI, Paragraph 62(a)(1).29 Individuals may be on rosters with other labor 35
organizations, but not with other Teamster locals. The Union wrote, “This has nothing to do
with paying “dobie dues” to another Teamster union or intention to transfer to another union.
This language means that you may not go to another jurisdiction and be placed on their [r]oster.
Many locals will allow members from other jurisdictions to work in their jurisdiction and pay a

28 Malcom wrote, “The intent of the 492 ‘one roster’ rules (399 has these same rules) is to
prevent someone from being able to cherry pick work in jurisdictions all over the country
causing true “local members” to lose out on work in their home jurisdiction” (R. Exh. 7).
29 This paragraph states, “One Roster Only: No person who is registered on any one grouping
Seniority Roster as above provided shall be eligible for any other grouping Seniority Roster, and
no person who is registered on any other Motion Picture Producer’s “Seniority Roster,” as herein
defined, shall be eligible for any other “Seniority Roster” hereunder.”
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
13
service fee, which is also known as “dobie dues,” and Local 492 is fine with that as long as they
do not roster you.” (Jt. Exh. 9 (emphasis in original)). The Union also writes,
In late 2014/early 2015 the 492 movie members were in an uproar over the local
not enforcing the grouping system and the roster rules. Now those complaints 5
have all but gone away and the rule breakers are now crying foul as we enforcing
those rules without exception as the members demanded. We all need to just
hang in there as these violators kick and scream because eventually they are going
to realize that we are protecting the welfare of the Movie membership as a whole
when we treat everybody the same and enforce the rules. 10
(Jt. Exh. 9).
Malcom testified that if Kelman wanted to reclaim his spot on the Union’s group 2 roster,
he needed to remove his name from Local 222’s roster, rejoin the Union and wait the 30-day15
permit period before he could go back to group 3 and complete 2 years on the Industry
Experience Roster to return to group 2 (Tr. 73).
DISCUSSION
20
A. THE ALLEGED DE FACTO EXCLUSIVE HIRING HALL
A threshold issue in this matter is whether during the relevant time, the Union operated a
de facto exclusive hiring hall whereby the Union referred its members and nonmembers to jobs
as drivers and wranglers on film productions in New Mexico. The General Counsel’s allegations 25
rely upon the premise that the Union operates an exclusive hiring hall. The Union argues it only
maintains referral lists and cannot be an exclusive hiring hall since the production companies
make the decision on whom to hire.
A union owes a duty of fair representation in the operation of a hiring hall only if it is the
employer’s exclusive source of labor. However, a union that operates a non-exclusive hiring hall 30
owes no such obligation. Cf. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 11 (Los Angeles NECA), 270
NLRB 424, 426 (1984), enfd. 772 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1985) (exclusive hiring hall), with
Carpenters Local 537 (E.I. du Pont), 303 NLRB 419, 420 (1991). The term “exclusive” as
defined by the Supreme Court regarding a union’s job referral system is the degree to which
hiring is reserved to the union hiring hall. Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International 35
Association Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67, 71 fn. 1, 110 S.Ct. 424, 428 (1989). The party
asserting the existence of an exclusive hiring hall bears the burden of proof. Carpenters Local
537 (E.I. du Pont), supra at 429. The Board examines “the totality of the circumstances.” Local
Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Independent (Totem Beverages, Inc.), 226 NLRB 690, 690 (1976).40
An exclusive hiring hall may be created by written or oral agreement or by practice. See
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Perry Olsen Drywall), 358 NLRB 1, fn. 2 (2012).
Furthermore, a union’s hiring hall is exclusive if it is an employer’s initial or primary source for
employees. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, 45
Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, Local 720, AFL-CIO,
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
14
CLC (Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.), 363 NLRB No. 148 (2016), citing Staging Employees IATSE,
Local 720 (AVW Audio Visuals, Inc.), 341 NLRB 1267 (2004). But simply because an employer
has the final decision on the selection of a worker does not render the hiring hall as non-
exclusive. See, e.g., Theatrical Wardrobe Union Local 769 (Broadway in Chicago), 349 NLRB
71, 72-73 (2007) (employer hired outside the union list on a few occasions when the list was 5
exhausted).
Here, the record shows that the combined effect of the CBA between Local 399 and the
various production, entertainment and film companies, the MOAs between the Union and the
various production companies, and the practices of the Union and production companies created 10
a de facto exclusive hiring hall at the Union. The CBA sets forth the terms and conditions of
employment and includes informing the local business agent of the need to hire personnel with at
least 72-hours notice. Furthermore, the MOAs between the Union and the various production
companies explains that the production companies agree to hire from the Union’s Industry
Experience Roster. While it is true that the production companies make the final decision on 15
hiring from the Industry Experience Roster, the totality of the circumstances shows that the
Union is the primary and initial source for drivers and wranglers when a MOA exists between
the Union and the production company. Only after the production company has exhausted the
Union’s Industry Experience Roster may the production company hire “off the street” which has
occurred rarely. Malcom offered examples of when a production company may not hire from the 20
Union’s Industry Experience Roster, but it is apparent that the bulk of drivers and wranglers
come from the Union’s list. Furthermore, Maestas testified that nearly all production companies
enter MOAs with the Union which requires the production companies to hire from the Industry
Experience Roster before hiring elsewhere. If a production company violates the MOA, the
Union has monetary recourse via the grievance process.25
The Union cites Laborers Local 334 (Kvaerner Songer, Inc.), 335 NLRB 597, 599 (2001)
in evaluating the issue of whether the union was an exclusive hiring hall (R. Br. at 9-10). The
Union argues that the contract language in Laborers Local 334 (Kvaerner Songer, Inc.) is similar
to language in its MOAs. However, in that matter, no exceptions had been filed to the judge’s 30
finding that the union operated a non-exclusive hiring hall. Id. at 599, fn. 2 (no exceptions filed
to the judge’s finding that the union did not violate Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act). As
such, that decision has no precedential value regarding the issue of exclusivity.
Based on the practices of the Union and production companies, I find that the Union 35
operates an exclusive referral system for show and movie production work.
B. THE DOUBLE-ROSTER RULE
1. Did the Union enforce an unlawful rule against Kelman?40
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
“to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, provided that this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its
own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.” When a union 45
operates an exclusive hiring hall, it has a duty of fair representation to all applicants using the
hall, whether members or nonmembers. See Breininger, supra. The union must operate the
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
15
exclusive hiring hall “in a fair and impartial manner. [ …] any referral rules […] cannot be
discriminatory or arbitrary.” Boilermakers Local 374 (Combustion Engineering), 284 NLRB
1382, 1383 (1987), enfd. 852 F.2d 1353 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Contractual rules and referral rules
must be followed, and objective criteria utilized. Operating Engineers Local 406 (Ford, Bacon
& Davis Construction), 262 NLRB 50 (1982). The Board states, 5
When a union prevents an employee from being hired or causes an employee’s discharge,
it has demonstrated its influence over the employee and its power to affect his livelihood
in so dramatic a way that we will infer-or, if you please, adopt a presumption that-the
effect of its action is to encourage union membership on the part of all employees who 10
have perceived that exercise of power. But the inference may be overcome, or the
presumption rebutted, not only when the interference with employment was pursuant to a
valid union-security clause, but also in the instance where the facts show that the union
action was necessary to the effective performance of its function of representing its
constituency. 15
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, AFL-CIO (Ohio Contractors
Association), 204 NLRB 681 (1973), reversed on other grounds 496 F.2d 1308 (6th Cir. 1974),
enfd denied 555 F.2d 552 (6th Cir. 1977). Unions have been able to rebut this presumption when
they are able to show that the conduct of an individual interfered with the integrity of the referral 20
system. See e.g., Boilermakers Local 40 (Envirotech Corp.), 266 NLRB 432, 433-434 (1983)
(union suspended an individual for violating referral rules by applying for work directly with
employers).
The Union’s double-roster rule prohibits anyone on another Teamster roster in the 25
industry from being placed on or maintaining roster status in New Mexico. As the rule affects
individuals’ employment status, the General Counsel established a rebuttable presumption that
the double-roster rule encourages union membership. See Operating Engineers Local 18 (Ohio
Contractors Assn.), supra. Since hiring by production companies occurs by group, a member
being in group 1 and 2 has an advantage over lower seniority grouping, and more likely will 30
obtain employment than will not.
Nonetheless, I find that the Union rebutted the presumption. As for whether the double-
roster rule is consistent with the Union’s duty of fair representation, the General Counsel must
show that the Union acted “so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness’ as to be irrational.” 35
Air Line Pilots Assn. v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67 (1991) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman,
345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)). Here, the Union’s policy is not arbitrary, discriminatory or applied in
bad faith. Cf. Stagehands Referral Service, 347 NLRB 1167, 1170-1171 (2006), enfd. 315
Fed.Appx. 318 (2d Cir. 2009) (union failed to refer a hiring hall member for arbitrary and
invidious reasons when union failed to refer a member for performance problems while treating 40
other members differently). The Union’s double-roster rule is reasonably designed to ensure the
effective operation of its hiring hall for members and nonmembers,30 is based on objective
criteria, has not be discriminatorily applied, and is clearly stated. See IATSE Local 838

30 In contrast, in Fisher Theater, 240 NLRB 678 (1979), the Board found that the rule
requiring payment of fines applied to only nonmembers, and as such the union did not overcome
the presumption.
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
16
(Freeman Decorating Co.), 364 NLRB No. 81, slip op. at 4 (2016) (union’s hiring hall
attendance rules were lawful because they addressed legitimate concerns regarding the hall’s
operation). As for applicability to members and nonmembers, the applicability of the double-
roster rule shows that these two groups of individuals are treated the same as demonstrated by
Kelman’s circumstances. Kelman, a union member, could not join another Teamster roster 5
without losing his group 2 status on the Union’s Industry Experience Roster. Moreover, an
individual on a Teamster roster could not join the Union’s Industry Experience Roster if he is
rostered with another Teamsters local. The General Counsel argues that the term “roster” was
undefined and unclear to Kelman. I reject this claim however. The term roster is clearly
discerned by its applicability in the context of the Union’s Industry Experience Roster. In 10
addition, I do not credit Kelman’s claim that he did not know the term roster as he was familiar
with the term in the summer of 2017 when he sought to join Local 222’s hiring lists (after stating
he was not registered anywhere else) and sought to move up in on the Union’s Industry
Experience Roster.
15
As for whether the rule is necessary to the Union’s effective performance of its function
of representing its constituency, the Board gives a union deference when deciding what conduct
is reasonable to ensure the effective performance of its representative role. See United
Brotherhood of Painters, Local Union No. 487, 226 NLRB 299, 301 (1976) (citing Ford Motor
Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953) (statutory bargaining representative must be able to 20
exercise a “wide range of reasonableness and discretion, subject to good faith, when serving its
unit)). Furthermore, the Board does not require the union to show that it was “the best or only
means available.” IATSE Local 838 (Freeman Decorating Co.), supra at slip op. 5 (citing
Millwrights’ Local 1102 (Planet Corp.), 144 NLRB 798, 801-802 (1963)); United Brotherhood
of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Local Union No. 487 (American Coatings, 25
Inc.), 226 NLRB 299, 301 (1976).
Applying Board precedent, I find that the Union’s double-roster rule is reasonably
designed to serve its objective of preserving work for its hiring hall users. As explained by the
Union’s witnesses, the Union created the double-roster rule, in part, to address concerns by 30
members that Teamsters from other locals were taking work in New Mexico from the Union’s
members who lived in New Mexico. Based on the credited evidence, the Union established the
double-roster rule to retain job opportunities for its members in the state of New Mexico. After
implementing the double-roster rule in 2016, the double-roster rule “completely” stopped
Teamsters from other locals from taking work from the Union’s Industry Experience Roster 35
persons. Thus, the double-roster rule reasonably served its purpose to retain work for its hiring
hall users and is necessary to the Union’s function of representing its constituency.31
Because of violating the double-roster rule, the Union removed Kelman from its Industry
Experience Roster, group 2, and placed him in group 6. However, the severity of the penalty 40
does not render the Union’s actions invalid. NLRB v. Boeing Co., et al., 412 U.S. 67 (1973)
(severity of the penalty is irrelevant if the action is ordered for legitimate, nondiscriminatory
purposes). The General Counsel cites to Fisher Theater, supra, and Pacific Maritime
Association, 228 NLRB 1383 (1977), for the proposition that the rules and consequences for

31 It should be noted, although it has no bearing on this decision, that Local 399 has a similar
double-roster rule in the Black Book.
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
17
violating the rules were only punitive and not for the proper maintenance of the hiring hall (GC
Br. at 12-14). I disagree with the General Counsel’s interpretation of these decisions. In both
matters, the unions sought to impose fines on members unrelated to the hiring halls. Here, the
Union’s removal of Kelman from their roster, due to his rostering with Local 222, goes directly
to the effective administration of the hiring hall. By moving Kelman to group 6, the Union 5
removed him from the Industry Experience Roster, and placed him in the roster grouping that is
specifically for hiring hall users who have not met the qualifications to be on the Industry
Experience Roster. Kelman can cure his double-roster violation by meeting the requirements for
group 3 which includes not being double-rostered. Moreover, unlike Fisher Theater and Pacific
Maritime, the double-roster rule applies to both members and nonmembers.10
Based on the above analysis, the Union’s double-roster rule does not violate Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as alleged.
2. Did the Union inform hiring hall users of the double-roster rule and the consequences for 15
violating it?
The General Counsel also alleges that the Union did not inform all hiring hall users of the
double-roster rule as well as the consequences for violating the rule. The Union merely argues
that Kelman knew of the double-roster rule, and the consequences of violating the rule (R. Br. at 20
13-14).
The Board does not require hiring hall rules and procedures to be written32 nor do referral
rules, absent contractual agreement, need to be posted or incorporated into a contract.33 But
these contractual and referral rules must be followed and objective criteria utilized. Operating 25
Engineers Local 406 (Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction), 262 NLRB 50 (1982). In addition, if
a hiring hall changes its rules, it must keep hiring hall users notified, and a failure to do so is
arbitrary and a breach in the union’s duty to inform its users and represent them fairly. See
Electrical Workers IBEW Local 11 (Los Angeles NECA), 270 NLRB 424 (1984), enfd. 772 F.2d
571 (9th Cir. 1985); Electrical Workers IBEW Local 164 (NECA), 190 NLRB 196 (1971), affd. 30
Sub nom. Bleier v. NLRB, 457 F.2d 871 (3d Cir. 1972).
Here, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Union took reasonable steps to
directly notify its hiring hall users of the double-roster rule, including Kelman. The Union sent
notice of the double-roster rule via the procedures for the Industry Experience Roster to all active 35
members of the hiring hall in November 2015. Thereafter, the Union again provided Kelman
with a copy of the double-roster rule in June 2017 when he sought to move from group 3 to
group 2. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Union was negligent in
ensuring all users of the hiring hall were informed of the hiring hall’s double-roster rule. Thus,
the Union gave timely notice of the double-roster rule prior to its implementation in January 40
2016, and the Union did not violate the Act.
Furthermore, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent failed to notify hiring hall
users of the consequences of violating the double-roster rule. In this instance, the Union

32 Laborers Local 394, 247 NLRB 97 (1980).
33 Iron Workers Local 505 (Snelson-Anvil), 275 NLRB 1113 (1985).
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
18
removed Kelman from its Industry Experience Roster since Kelman rostered with Local 222 in
Utah in violation of the double-roster rule. As such, the Union placed Kelman on its group 6 or
supplemental roster which is the group for members who do not yet meet the criteria to be placed
on the Union’s Industry Experience Roster including residency or CDL requirements. In
accordance with the double-roster rule, Kelman could not be on the Industry Experience Roster, 5
and needed to be removed as such. The Union then offered Kelman options on how he could
proceed. Although these “consequences” are not specifically set forth in the double-roster rules,
I do not find that the union acted in an arbitrary manner.
Moreover, none of the cases cited by the General Counsel support the proposition that a 10
union must inform hiring hall users of the consequences for violating a rule. The General
Counsel claims that the test is a “simple relevancy’ test as to whether the information is
necessary for hiring hall users “for an intelligent utilization of the hiring hall” (GC Br. at 19,
citing International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 6, AFL-CIO (The San Francisco
Electrical Contractors Association: Butcher Electric), 318 NLRB 109, 134)).34 However, this 15
“relevancy test” has no precedential value as the Board specifically passed on the judge’s
finding. Id. at 109. The General Counsel also cites to two other decisions Plumbers Local 519
(Sam Bloom Plumbing), 306 NLRB 810, 810 fn. 1 (1992), enfd. 15 F.3d 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1994);
Plumbers Local 38 (Bechtel Corp.), 306 NLRB 511, 511-512 (1992), enfd. mem. 17 F.3d 393
(9th Cir. 1994) to support its argument. However, these cases address violations and remedies of 20
the Act when changes to hiring hall rules are unlawful only to the extent the union failed to give
adequate notice. Accordingly, I find that the Union did not violate the Act as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
25
1. International Brotherhood Union of Teamsters Local 492 (Union or Respondent) is, and
has been at all times material, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Fire and Ice Productions, Inc. (Employer) is, and has been at all times material, an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of 30
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. The Union did not violate the Act in any manner alleged in the complaint.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, I 35
issue the following recommended35

34 The additional cases cited by the General Counsel address the issue of whether the union is
obligated to comply with an employee’s request for information (GC Br. at 19). Here, there is no
allegation that the Union refused to provide information requested by Kelman.
35 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–17–19
Albuquerque, NM
19
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 24, 2019.5
____________________
Amita Baman Tracy
Administrative Law Judge10