Intl Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 552 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

552 INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 640
(Associated Independent Theatre Company, Inc.)
and Alfred Layne. Case 29-CB-391
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Arthur M. Gold-
berg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that certain affirmative action be taken.
He also found that Respondent had not engaged
in other alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examin-
er's Decision and a supporting brief; the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion, a supporting brief, and a brief opposing excep-
tions filed by the Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The Board has con-
sidered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent
consistent herewith.
Based upon a charge filed on August 17, 1967,
the original complaint in this case issued on October
17, 1967. The complaint alleged that pursuant to
various collective-bargaining agreements between the
Respondent Union and several employers, including
Associated Independent Theatre Company, Inc., the
Union, which is the bargaining representative of the
motion picture projectionists employed by said
employers, has the exclusive right to refer projection-
ists for employment through its hiring hall procedures,
and the employers are required to obtain all of their
projectionists from said hiring hall. It was alleged
that since on or about February 14, 1967, the Respond-
' The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is hereby
denied because the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties
ent discriminated against Alfred Layne by failing
and refusing to place him on Respondent's permanent
and temporary job referral lists, by refusing to accord
Layne the seniority to which he is entitled, and by
refusing to refer him for employment in accord with
Respondent's exclusive referral arrangement, all
because of his nonmembership in the Respondent
Union and because of his membership in Local 306,
IATSE, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. Respondent denied the allegations of
the complaint and raised several affirmative defenses.
On June 14, 1968, an amended complaint was
issued, which, in addition to the allegations in the
original complaint, added the allegation that since
on or about February 14, 1967, the Union has required
from Layne and other employees, as a prerequisite
for referral for and retention of employment, the
payment of "monies, including but not limited to,
service fees, referral fees, and permit fees." This was
also alleged to be violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2).
Respondent, in answer to the amended complaint,
again denied the material accusations of the complaint.
Regarding the initiation fees, Respondent answered
that members were required to pay initiation fees
and dues, and that both members and nonmembers
who obtained work through the hiring hall are assessed
a percentage of gross earnings which is allocated
to maintenance of the hiring hall and functions of
the Union as a collective-bargaining agent.
Thus, the complaint as amended alleged discnmina-
tory application of the Respondent's seniority roster
only with regard to Layne (and not simply on a
negative basis-his nonmembership in Respondent-
but also on an affirmative basis-his membership
in a sister local). However, the case was litigated
on the basis of whether the entire operation of
Respondent's hiring hall discriminated against non-
members of Respondent. As discussed in detail below,
the Trial Examiner found that operation of the entire
hiring hall was discriminatory, and also found that
the hiring hall fees levied against all nonmembers
were excessive and should be reimbursed in some
part.
1. FACTS AS TO LAYNE
Alfred Layne is a member of Local 306, IATSE,
which has jurisdiction over motion picture projection-
ists in New York City. He has been a member of
that local since 1933 and has been a projectionist
at the Victoria Theatre in New York City since
at least 1948 , a job which he continued to hold
during all of the proceedings in the present case.
Although a member of Local 306, Layne has neverthe-
less also sought to become a member of Local 640,
185 NLRB No. 27
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
IATSE, the Respondent in this case, which has juris-
diction over projectionists in Nassau and Suffolk coun-
ties (the counties composing Long Island and which
adjoin New York City). The Respondent Union oper-
ates a hiring hall through which it is the exclusive
referral agent for most of the motion picture theatres
within its jurisdiction.
The date on which Layne first sought to become
a member of Respondent is in dispute. Layne moved
to Levittown (a town in Nassau County) in 1948,
and he testifies that he had told Nagengast, now
deceased but formerly Respondent's business agent,
as early as 1949 that he was interested in steady
work and membership in Respondent. However, the
Trial Examiner does not credit Layne except where
his testimony is corroborated by documentary evi-
dence or admissions of adverse witnesses, and he
finds that Layne did not seek membership in Respond-
ent until April 6, 1963.1 On that date, Layne wrote
to Respondent Union requesting permission to appear
before its executive board. Following his appearance,
on May 19, 1963, Layne received a letter from
Respondent, stating that the executive board was
denying his request for membership because it was
of the opinion that "dual membership in adjoining
projection locals could possibly be detrimental to
the welfare of the members and/or Locals involved."
Layne sporadically continued to request membership
in Respondent and, as late as October 21, 1966,
he wrote to Respondent asking to be considered.
Despite Layne's failure to obtain membership in
Respondent, he was given part-time work by that
local within its jurisdiction as early as 1948. In May
1960, Layne was assigned by Respondent to a steady
job at the Amity Theatre in South Farmingdale.
Layne hired Feinberg, a Local 306 member, to split
this job with him, and this arrangement lasted until
Feinberg quit in 1963. In 1964, the owners of the
Amity Theatre insisted that the projectionist at their
theatre be a full-time projectionist, with a relief man
present only on the regular projectionist's 1 day off
each week Layne accepted these conditions and con-
tinued to hold a full-time job both at the Amity
Theatre and the Victoria. He was able to do this
because the two schedules were generally different,
and he arranged to have someone cover his job at
the Victoria when he could not be there
In January 1968, a fire at the Amity Theatre caused
that theater to be closed for a period of time. As
a result, Layne contacted Washburn, business agent
for Local 640, seeking temporary employment. Wash-
' The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's discrediting
of Layne in this regard Careful consideration of the General Counsel's
arguments leads us to conclude that the Trial Examiner 's determination
should be adopted Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
553
burn gave Layne temporary jobs until the Amity
Theatre was reopened on June 26, 1968, at which
time Layne was able to resume working there.
Throughout his residence in Long Island, Layne has
retained his full-time position at the Victoria Theatre
in New York City
II. OPERATION OF THE HIRING HALL
Before discussing the specifically alleged discrimina-
tion against Layne, an examination of the operation
of the hiring hall in its entirety, and of the Trial
Examiner's finding of discrimination in such opera-
tion, is necessary. This requires considration of the
various lists which were maintained by Local 640
in the operation of the hiring hall. There is a dispute
as to the maintenance and the use of these lists.
A. Preferred Work Roster
According to Washburn, he established a "Preferred
Work Roster" when he became business agent in
1961. The preferred work roster lists projectionists
working in the jurisdiction of Local 640 in order
of seniority positions assigned to them by the Union.
Except as later discussed, the roster has two purposes:
it contains the listing of projectionists within the
jurisdiction according to seniority assigned to them
by the Union, and it constitutes the mailing list
of persons to whom announcements of available full-
time positions are sent In other words, by virtue
of being on the roster, individuals will receive
announcements of full-time vacancies; and if they
bid on the vacancy, the individual with the greatest
seniority, by virtue of his position on the roster,
will be awarded the job. Washburn's testimony is
somewhat uncertain as to how the list was initially
complied, at one time stating that when he took
over as business agent there was already in existence
a list of approximately 105 persons, and another
time stating that he may have complied the list from
a collection of cards maintained by the Union, which
cards only gave the names and initiation dates of
members who are working fulltime in the jurisdiction.
Thus, the manner in which the original seniority
list of 1961 was compiled is unclear, and although
an examination of the list suggests that those named
were all union members and that they were listed
in order of their dates of induction into the Union,
there is no evidence that other than union members
sought inclusion in the list, or that the individual's
induction date into the Union did not also coincide
with his beginning work date in the area.
As to the group of persons who, between 1961
and 1966, were next added to the list, being given
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
numbers 106 to 159, Washburn stated at one point
in his testimony that they were all members of
Respondent when he placed them on the roster. This
single piece of testimony is in direct conflict with
all of Washburn ' s other testimony as to the basis
for their positions on the list. Throughout his long
appearance on the stand , Washburn testified repeated-
ly that , after he took over in 1961 as business agent,
persons were added to the roster as they requested
to go on it , or as they requested to go to work.
As the one point referred to above, however, the
following exchange took place between Washburn
and the General Counsel:
Q. With the exception of Dan Lee Hinely,
who is No. 135, all of the names from 106
through 159 are members of Local 640 and were
members of Local 640 when their names were
put on the preferred work roster by you, is
that true?
A. Yes, I believe they were.
Apparently on the basis of this exchange and other
evidence hereafter discussed , the Trial Examiner con-
cluded that the names which Washburn added to
the list between 1961 and 1966 , and to which he
assigned number 106 through 159 , were, with the
one exception of an admitted nonmember , Daniel
Hinely , those of members in order of their initiation
dates into Local 640.
We are of the opinion that this selective choice
of testimony is, on the whole record , insupportable.
This single answer is contrary to the persistent thrust
of Washburn ' s other testimony that an individual's
placement on the list was governed by his requesting
to be on the list or requesting to go to work. It
does not seem likely that Washburn would have con-
sciously given this incriminating answer, so much
in contrast to his other testimony , at a point in
the examination when he was under no particular
stress. It would appear, rather , that Washburn may
not have understood the question and was giving
his opinion of how the original 1961 list was formulat-
ed. For these reasons, we cannot agree with the
Trial Examiner that this particular piece of testimony
can be deemed an adverse admission by Washburn.
As additional support for his conclusion that initia-
tion into Respondent 's ranks was the sole basis for
positioning on the rosters, the Trial Examiner refers
to one of three preferred work rosters in evidence
(all of which are dated September 1, 1966, but none
of which are completely identical), on which, next
to all but one (Hinely) of the first 159 names, are
dates which are typed , followed by dates which are
penned . Respondent's counsel agreed that the penned
dates signify initiation dates. According to Washburn,
the typed dates refer to the date the employees asked
to be put on the roster or go to work. Based upon
the stipulation that the penned dates are initiation
dates, and the single bit of Washburn 's testimony,
discussed above, as to when he placed persons on
the list after 1961, the Trial Examiner concludes
that through at least number 159 , which bears an
initiation date of January 11, 1966, initiation dates
determined placement on the preferred work roster.
The fact is , however , that while it was stipulated
that the penned dates were initiation dates, it was
not stipulated that the names were listed as of those
dates, rather than according to the typed dates, which
are purportedly the dates on which individuals asked
to go on the list or to go to work . The problem
in determining which of the dates was the trigger
for placing names on the list is that both the typed
and the penned dates are, respectively , in chronological
order , and it is therefore difficult to determine which
date qualified a person to go on the list.
The dubious support in the record for the Trial
Examiner 's interpretation of Washburn 's testimony,
and for the inference he chose to draw from the
stipulation regarding the penned dates on the preferred
work roster , casts doubt upon his finding that place-
ment on the list was based only on membership
in the Union , and that the list's use in the operation
of the hiring hall was therefore discriminatory. As
previously noted , position 135 on the roster is held
by Hinely, concededly not a member of the Union
at the time he was placed on the list in December
1961.' The General Counsel's representative offers
no satisfactory reconciliation of this placement of
a nonmember on the list with her theory that one
had to be a member to be put on the roster. The
Trial Examiner argues that the fact one nonmember
was placed on the list does not change the pattern
of 158 other listings. We do not agree with this
assessment . In'addition , even prior to 1966 , the Union
began mingling union and nonunion employees freely
on the roster , as evidenced by the many names on
the roster which , as of the hearing, had no penned
dates indicating initiations and were not proved to be
members of the Respondent.
The Gene'.,al Counsel ' s theory-that one had to be
a member of `.ocal 640 in order to be placed on the
preferred roster - is not supported by any oral
testimony of members or nonmembers , except for
whatever support may be derived from Layne's
testimony, to 1-c discussed infra The General
Counsel ' s representat.""e tries to make her case
almost entirely from documents and examination of
Washburn under Rule 43(b), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure No nonmember other than Layne was
' While Hmely was not a member in 1961, he was initiated into
membership in 1968
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES 555
called by the General Counsel to testify that he was
not given a position on the roster until he became a
member, or that he had applied to go on the roster
and was denied a position. The only other
nonmember who testified was one Ringfield. On
General Counsel Exhibit 43, the version of the
preferred work roster which contains only typed dates
next to the names, Ringfield's name appears as
number 230 with a typed date of "I 1/ 13/67 "
Ringfield testified that he is not a union member."
From other evidence, it also appears that other
nonmembers are on the roster in positions preceding
Ringfield's. Thus, other than Layne, we have no firm
evidence of any projectionists in the area who may
have been the object of discrimination by
Respondent.
This is not to say that the rosters do not give
rise to some palpable doubts about their legitimacy.
The General Counsel raises question about the veracity
of the typed dates on Respondent's rosters, which,
as discussed above, allegedly refer to the date a person
asked to be on the roster or asked to go to work.
Paul Bader appears on the preferred work roster
as number 183 with a typed date of "3/65." But
Bader's employment application form is dated June
20, 1965, and his application for a regular job is
dated August 2, 1965. He was initiated into the
Union on October 4, 1966. George Quarituis, Jr.,
number 151, has a typed date of "3/63," yet he
was in the Navy until November 14, 1963. His employ-
ee application form is dated January 12, 1964, and
he was initiated into the Union on January 11, 1966.
C Orlando appears on one of the three lists as
number 236, with the typed date of January 19,
1968, yet he does not appear on another of the
lists even though the latter bears names with dates
which are later than January 19, 1968. The General
Counsel argues that Orlando, who was initiated into
the Union on June 12, 1968, was slotted into the
first roster referred to above other persons who were
not union members.
The record provides no complete answers to the
questions raised by the General Counsel. Nowhere
in the record is there a full explication of the clerical
procedures involved in drawing up these lists or an
explanation of the differences between them. Wash-
burn's testimony indicates that his bookkeeping proce-
dures were lax. The explanations for the discrepancies
described could lie in mere clerical inadvertency or
negligent recordkeeping. On the whole, we are not
persuaded that these few instances are sufficient to
prove that the lists were maintained on a members
Rmgfield originally applied to the Union for a position in 1966,
but did not become available for full-time work until 1967 At that
time, he was placed on the roster
only basis or were manipulated in order to favor
members over nonmembers.
B. Job Lists "A" and "C"
Aside from the preferred work rosters, there are
two other listings maintained by the Union which
are allegedly used for the assigning of jobs. The
first, Job List "A," was described by Washburn as
being composed of persons who were either completely
unemployed or were only employed part-time and
who were desirous of full-time employment. Washburn
testified that persons were placed upon this list upon
their request and that the majority of persons on
this list were not members of the Union or were
not members when first on the list. According to
Washburn, to appear on the "A" list, a person must
have a preferred work roster number. Job list "C"
is made up of persons seeking only part-time work
at certain times, and contains names of union and
nonunion persons. There apparently also was a job
list "B" at one time, but the record is unclear as
to its composition or use.
There was a great deal of confusing testimony
concerning the operation of these lists. As far as
can be divined, Washburn testified that, as a matter
of practice, temporary jobs were often assigned by
him without going to the lists. Jobs were placed
out for bid only when he decided that the bid proce-
dure should be used. Washburn stated that when
temporary oneshot jobs were assigned by him, he
would first contact those on job list "A," which
listed individuals looking for full-time or any part-
time work. When he had a group of 1-day jobs
which he could put together as a block, making
a week's work, he would then send them out to
be bid upon. Bids were sent to persons on all three
lists. According to Washburn, persons on the preferred
work roster had first choice of any such jobs that
were bid upon.
The General Counsel contends that job list "A"
is spurious, having been made up only for purposes
of this hearing in order to show the mingling and
commingling of members and nonmembers. The Trial
Examiner found it unnecessary to determine the validi-
ty of job list "A," because he felt that the preferred
work roster is the key to the operation of the hiring
hall, since listing on job list "A" is conditioned on
first securing a position on the preferred work roster.
As to job list "C," the Trial Examiner notes that,
for whatever value this list may have, Layne's name
appears first on that list. We agree with the Trial
Examiner that the nature of the evidence adduced
as to job lists "A" and "C" is too ambiguous to
lend support to the General Counsel's case.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. New Tentative Seniority Roster
There is still another list. In September 1968, the
Union issued a "New Tentative Seniority Roster,"
apparently in an effort to comply with a stipulation
for settlement arrived at in an earlier proceeding
before the Board. Position on the list was based
on earnings and the number of calendar quarters
an individual had worked in the jurisdiction since
1925. This roster was introduced by Respondent as
part of its defense in an effort to show that it was
currently operating under a valid seniority system.
In making his finding that the previous seniority
rosters were discriminatory, the Trial Examiner con-
sidered the effect of this new roster. The Trial Examin-
er found that by determining roster position for the
"New Tentative Seniority Roster" on the basis of
earnings from, and time worked on, jobs obtained
through the hiring hall, including a period when
the "discriminatory" preferred work roster controlled
job assignments, the new roster perpetuates the bias
against nonunion projectionists who could not, in
the past, have bid for or attained steady work. The
Trial Examiner thus holds that the new roster, based
on such work history, does not purge the past discrimi-
nation. Instead of the new roster, he orders, as a
remedy for the overall discrimination he finds that
the Union, in conjunction with the Regional Director
for Region 29 and subject to his approval, should
be required to revise the seniority roster used for
job referral purposes to integrate Alfred Layne and
others similarly circumstanced into a place on such
list which will reflect their time of entry into employ-
ment within the jurisdiction of the Union, taking
into account their availability for employment since
that time
Since we do not adopt the Trial Examiner', conclu-
sion that the General Counsel has established by
a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent's
operation of its hinng hall seniority list has discrimi-
nated against nonmembers, we need not reach the
issues raised by Respondent with regard to the remedy
ordered by the Trial Examiner of his conclusions
as to the validity of the "New Tentative Seniority
Roster."
D. Summary as to Overall Discrimination in the
Hiring Hall
The Trial Examiner found that the preferred work
roster was operated in a discriminatory manner, based
on his findings that positions on the list were based
solely on initiation into the Union. As noted in the
earlier discussion, we believe that this finding is based
on two insupportable inferences drawn from the evi-
dence. We find, accordingly, that it has not been
satisfactorily established that initiation into Respond-
ent Union was the key to obtaining a position on
the preferred work roster, and we therefore reverse
the finding of overall discrimination in operation of
the hiring hall.
III. DISCRIMINATION AS TO ALFRED LAYNE
A. Significance of Requesting Membership in Local
640
We turn now to the specific question of the alleged
discrimination against Alfred Layne. As noted previ-
ously, starting in 1963 and as late as October 21,
1966, Alfred Layne wrote to Local 640 requesting
"membership" in the local. In all of his inquiries,
Layne requested "membership"; he never made partic-
ular reference to a desire to be on any seniority
lists, such as the preferred work roster There is
no indication, however, that Layne had ever heard
of such a roster until just before filing the charge
in this case.
Washburn testified that he did not put Layne on
the preferred roster because Layne had never asked
to be on the list. In spite of this testimony and
the fact that Layne's letters had only sought "member-
ship," the Trial Examiner found that Layne "sought
listing" on the preferred work roster as early as
1963. The basis for the Trial Examiner's finding
is twofold.
One ground given by him is the theory that since
only initiation into the Union would secure placement
of an individual's name on the preferred work roster,
until at least January 1966, application for membership
must be considered the equivalent of application for
a position on the preferred work roster. Since Layne
had sought such membership since as early as April
6, 1963, when he first wrote to the Union's executive
board, the Trial Examiner would consider that Layne
made application for the preferred work roster as
of that time. From this finding, the Trial Examiner
concludes that Layne should have been placed on
the roster as of 1963, and should have accumulated
seniority starting from that date. This conclusion
becomes important to a decision about whether Layne
was discriminatorily denied a job within the Section
10(b) period, to be discussed infra.
It may be questioned whether the Trial Examiner
is correct in finding that the letters seeking "member-
ship" were necessarily the equivalent of seeking a
place on the preferred work roster. At the time Layne
wrote the letters, he was working full time in the
Union's jurisdiction (as well as in New York City).
It may reasonably be argued that his requests for
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
"membership" in Local 640 did not convey the impres-
sion that he wanted also to be placed on a seniority
roster so that he might be considered for future
jobs which might open up. Thus, it may be that
Layne's proper seniority, against which to measure
possible discrimination within the 10(b) period, should
only be calculated from a time at which Layne had
made it clear that he wanted to be on the Union's
work roster. While placement on the roster may
well have been Layne's purpose for seeking member-
ship, he never expressly communicated this desire
to the Union, at least until 1967 However, even
accepting the Trial Examiner's conclusion, it would
appear that no remediable showing of discrimination
against Layne has been made out, as discussed below.
B. Significance of Oral Requests
The second ground relied on by the Trial Examiner
for rejecting Washburn's explanation of why Layne
was not put on the list is evidence relating to an
occasion within the 10(b) period which shows that
Layne did seek listing at the time on the preferred
work roster. Washburn testified that men were placed
on the preferred work roster during that period, and
prior thereto, on the basis of nothing more formal
than oral requests. The following evidence indicates
that Layne did give a specific indication during the
10(b) period of his desire to be offered new jobs
as they became available.
On June 13, 1967, Layne wrote to Washburn stating
that he had heard rumors that he was on the seniority
list of Local 640. Washburn replied, in a letter dated
June 28, 1967, that since there was presently pending
before the National Labor Relations Board a case
dealing with the nature and day-to-day operation
of the seniority and job referral system, he could
not answer that question. He also stated that "I
assume that you are satisfied with working conditions
at the Amity Theatre and that you do not seek
any other part-time employment." On July 7, 1967,
within the 10(b) period, Layne wrote to Washburn
saying that he had always been interested in securing
a better paying job than his current full-time job
at the Amity Theatre and that during the past 7
years Washburn never notified him of a steady full-
time job opening for which he could apply. Although
Washburn thereafter, on September 27, began sending
bid lists to Layne, he still did not put Layne on
the Roster.
The Trial Examiner reasons that if, as Washburn
testified, oral requests by others were sufficient to
place them on the preferred work roster, then the
July 7, 1967, letter from Layne should have been
sufficient to earn him a listing on the roster. He
557
concluded that the refusal to place Layne on the
roster at that time and thereafter was a continuing
effectuation of the Union's 1963 concern that placing
him on the preferred work roster "could possibly
be detrimental to the good and welfare of the members
[640 and 306] involved."
We agree that the July 7 letter was certainly equiva-
lent to an oral request for placement, sufficient to
warrant Layne's being placed on the preferred work
roster. By stating a desire to be told about other
jobs for which he could apply, Layne was requesting
a place on that list. The failure of the Union to
place Layne on the list was a departure from its
normal practice testified to by Washburn. Since, how-
ever, the Respondent was, at the time, unquestionably
placing other nonmember applicants on the seniority
list, we infer, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respond-
ent's reason for discriminating against Layne was
not the fact that he was not a member of Respondent,
but rather the fact that he was a member of another
local. Refusal to accord Layne a place on the seniority
list for such a reason is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2), and we so find.
C. Remedy
While finding that the Union thus acted discrimina-
torily against Layne, we also conclude, as did the
Trial Examiner, that Layne suffered no harm for
which monetary remedial action should be ordered.
The evidence does not show that there were any
bids sent out to which Layne could lay claim, under
any test of seniority, between February 14, 1967,
the beginning of the 10(b) period, and September
27, 1967, when Layne received his first bid list from
the Union. Thereafter, Layne received the bids that
were mailed out, but the first one on which he submit-
ted a bid was the Massapequa Drive-In job on July
29, 1968. This job was, however, awarded to Raymond
Escorcia, who was on the preferred work roster,
compiled by Washburn in 1961, on the basis of his
initiation date of October 14, 1958. The Trial Examin-
er found, as noted, that Layne should have been
on the list with seniority dating from 1963; from
this finding, he proceeded to find that, even if Layne
had been put on the list at the "proper" time, he
still would have postdated Escorcia's seniority by
"almost 10 years" and his bid would have been rejected
in favor of Escorcia's.s
We agree with the Examiner's ultimate conclusion
that Layne should not have prevailed over Escorcia
' It is not clear why the Trial Examiner stated that, given Layne's
starting seniority date of 1963 and Escorcia 's date of 1958, the former's
seniority postdated the latter 's by "almost 10 years "
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the Massapequa job. The Union could have legiti-
mately used, and apparently did use, a system in
which it placed individuals on a referral list according
to the date they went to work (after 1961) or requested
to go on the list. Even if we equate a request for
"membership" with a request for placement on the
list (a conclusion we have found questionable, supra),
Layne's first such request was in 1963, and he should
have been placed on the list then, but, due to his
membership in the other local, he was not so placed.
There was, therefore, particularized discrimination
against Layne, and he should be credited with seniority
since 1963, for purposes of comparison with Escorcia.
Since Layne's placement on the list on a legitimate
basis-application for placement on the roster-would
postdate Escorcia's seniority by 5 years, we agree
with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the discrimi-
nation against Layne did not prejudice his chances
for the Massapequa job. It should be noted that
our finding of discrimination against Layne by
Respondent does not necessarily mean that other
nonunion individuals, who did not share Layne's spe-
cial status as a member of Local 306, were discriminat-
ed against generally, as the Trial Examiner found.
It thus appears, as discussed above, that Layne
was discriminated against because of his membership
in Local 306 We shall therefore order that Respondent
cease and desist from such unlawful discrimination.
IV. LOCAL 640 ASSESSMENTS
The amended complaint alleges that the Union
violated Section 8(b)(1)(a ) and (2 ) by charging moneys,
including service fees, referral fees, and permit fees,
to employees as a "condition of referral to employment
and for continued employment."
Local 640 requires that all projectionists , members
and nonmembers , who obtain employment through
its exclusive hiring hall must pay an assessment of
2 percent of their gross earnings from such employ-
ment as a fee for use of the referral system. In
addition , members pay an initiation fee of $300 and
annual dues of $30.
The Trial Examiner found that Layne and other
nonmembers in fact were given work through the
hiring hall during the Section 10(b) period, and he
rejected the General Counsel ' s primary request for
reimbursement of all assessments collected from non-
members. The Trial Examiner concluded , however,
that existing law makes it a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(a) to require nonmembers to pay assessments
in excess of costs attributable to the hiring hall and
related collective bargaining , citing Local 138, Operat-
ing Engineers v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 130 (C.A. 2).6
' This case involved two Board and two court decisions 139 NLRB
633, enfd 321 F 2d 130, 153 NLRB 1374, and 385 F 2d 874
He therefore recommended that, in accordance with
Local 138, supra, the Union "reimburse each nonmem-
ber who paid assessments during the 10(b) period
a sum of money representing his pro rata share of
the excess of assessments paid against total cost attrib-
utable to hiring hall and collective bargaining expen-
ses." He also would order that the Union make
such a reimbursement to nonmembers each year in
the future.
At the hearing, the Respondent's accountant testi-
fied concerning the Union's income from assessments
and the expenses allocable to the maintenance of
the hiring hall. Respondent asserts that it merely
introduced such evidence, without being too precise
in allocating expenses, for the purpose of showing
a "reasonable" relationship between moneys collected
from assessments and moneys expended on the hiring
hall. These figures, discussed by the Trial Examiner
and reproduced in Appendixes A and B of his Deci-
sion, show that in 1967 the Union collected about
$35,000 in assessments ($6,500 of it from nonmembers)
and spent about $29,500 on maintenance of the hiring
hall and related collective bargaining. In the first
9 months of 1968, the figures show that the Union
collected approximately $29,000 in assessments
($5,500 from nonmembers) and spent about $26,000
allocated to the hiring hall. As noted, Respondent
submits that the financial analysis which it introduced
was merely supportive of its defense and was not
intended to be a firm representation of the cost break-
down. The Trial Examiner recognizes this latter asser-
tion in his Decision, saying, "In dividing total expenses
between the two areas of activity, [the Union accoun-
tant] was more rigorous in allocating expenses to
the Union as an institution than was the General
Counsel in Local 138, supra."
In Local 138, the Board had found blanket discrimi-
nation in the operation of a hiring hall, for the
use of which union men and nonmembers were
required to pay $10 a month each. Of the $10 paid
by each individual, $2 was remitted to the Union's
International. The Board ordered reimbursement of
all fees paid by nonunion men, as a remedy for
the discriminatorily operated hiring hall. On review,
the Second Circuit found some discrimination in run-
ning the hall, but not to the extent found by the
Board. The court agreed that the permit fees were
excessive and were set at a rate which was an obvious
effort to exact from nonmembers the amounts paid
by members, which the Union "could not do in
the guise of charging for its services as an employment
agency." The court remanded the case to the Board
for consideration of the question of "what proportion
of the fees which were paid were reasonably related
to the services provided by the Union, having in
INTL. ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
mind the cost to the union of providing such services.
Any excess over that amount could properly be
ordered returned to the men who paid it." The court
also cautioned the Board to keep in mind its "rejection
of the Board 's finding of blanket discrimination in
determining whether such an order is warranted."
It may be noted that , in the case presently before
the Board , we are not finding blanket or even substan-
tial discrimination.
On remand , the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's
conclusion , reached after a supplemental hearing, that
nonmembers should be refunded $3.50 of every $10
paid over a 5-year period (the Union had stopped
collecting such fees at the end of that period). 153
NLRB 1376. In its review of the supplemental pro-
ceeding, the court enforced the Board's order, 385
F.2d 874.
In answer to the Union 's argument that the reim-
bursement order was in the nature of a penalty,
the court made the following statement:
Since the union was committing an unfair labor
practice to the extent it charged the permit men
a fee not reasonably related to the cost of provid-
ing the job referral service, the Board was amply
justified in ordering the union to reimburse the
permit men in the amount of fees in excess
of the value of the hiring hall services. Such
an order clearly meets the requirement that a
reimbursement order be remedial.
After careful consideration of the issue, we are
disposed to dismiss the allegation relating to assess-
ment of referral fees. In our view, the breakdown
of income and expenses in the record does not demon-
strate that the assessments were not, in terms of
the test laid down by the Second Circuit, "reasonably
related to the services provided by the union," or
that the assessments were "in excess of the value
of the hiring hall services ." In 1967 , using the Union
accountant's concededly less-than -rigorous figures, the
Union spent at least $29,500 for hiring hall and
related collective bargaining (and $12,000 for "institu-
tional expenses"). In that year , the Union collected
$35,000 from hiring hall assessments of members
and nonmembers , $28,500 of which was from members
and $6,500 from nonmembers. The Union, in other
words, on the less-than -precise figures before us, spent
at least five-sixths of its hiring hall assessments for
the costs of the hall. Furthermore , if it had to return
the other one-sixth of the assessments ($5,500), it
would have to reimburse nonmembers for only some-
what more than one-fifth of that amount ($1,100),
since assessments were collected from nonmembers
and members at a ratio of $6,500/$28,500. The only
other figures available related to just the first 9 months
559
of 1968 , showing total costs allocable to the hiring
hall of $26,000 and total assessments received of
about $29,000. In Local 138, supra, there was a
finding of a substantial amount of discrimination and
a clear showing that, over a 5-year period, the Union
consistently collected $ 3.50 per month more (out
of $10) than it needed for running the hiring hall.
In the present case , we make no finding of substantial
discrimination , and it may well be that , over a more
representative period of years, the assessments and
their proper allocations would be equalized. In the
circumstances of this case , we are of the opinion
that the evidence does not support a finding that
the assessment system was violative of the Act, and
we shall dismiss the relevant complaint allegations.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The record and briefs indicate that, contrary to its
apparently nondiscriminatory past practice of accord-
ing employees seniority from the date of their applica-
tion to be on the referral roster, or the date after
1961 on which they began working in the Union's
jurisdiction , the Union has turned to another nondis-
crimatory method of measuring seniority-accumulat-
ed employment experience within the Union's jurisdic-
tion. In complying with our order as to Layne, the
Union , of course, will have to afford Layne nondiscri-
minatory treatment under any such newly adopted
seniority system.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Associated Independent Theatre Company, Inc.,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local
640, and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, Local
306, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating against Alfred Layne by failing
to place him on the preferred work roster, Respondent
Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in other unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Inter-
national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 640, its officers,
agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Refusing or failing to refer Alfred Layne, or
any other employee, for employment to Associated
Independent Theatre Company, Inc., or affiliate there-
of, or any other employer subject to the Board's
jurisdiction , because Layne or such other employee
is a member of some other union or local union.
(b) Placing or maintaining Alfred Layne, or any
other employee, with regard to employment with
Associated Independent Theatre Company, Inc., or
affiliate thereof, or any other employer subject to
the Board 's jurisdiction , at the bottom or at any
other place other than a proper and nondiscriminatory
place upon said Respondent 's permanent, temporary,
or other job referral, job priority , or job seniority
lists or rosters , because said Layne, or such other
employee, is a member of some other union or local
union ; or otherwise in any manner failing to accord
Layne or other employees job referral rights fully
equal or equivalent to those of members of Respond-
ent, in accordance with the requirements of the Act,
including Section 8(b)(2) thereof.
(c) Causing or attempting to cause Associated Inde-
pendent Theatre Company, Inc., or affiliate thereof,
or any other employer subject to the Board 's jurisdic-
tion , to discriminate against Alfred Layne, or any
other employee, in regard to his hire or tenure of
employment, or any other terms or conditions of
employment , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
(d) In any other manner restraining or coercing
Alfred Layne or any other employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that the rights of employees may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amend-
ed.
2. Take the following affirmative action found neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Integrate Alfred Layne into his proper place
on the seniority rosters used for job referral purposes
by the Respondent Union according to the appropriate
nondiscriminatory policies used by Respondent for
compiling such rosters.
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its offices at
22 Pine Street, Freeport, Long Island, New York,
and at all other places where notices to members
and applicants for employment through use of its
facilities are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix C." Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
29, after being duly signed by a representative of
Respondent Union, shall be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members and applicants
for employment are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the aforesaid
notice to the Regional Director for Region 29 for
posting by Associated Independent Theatre Company,
Inc., if it is willing, in the places where notices
to employees are customarily posted Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, shall, after having been signed by
Respondent's representative, be forthwith returned
to the Regional Director for such posting by Associat-
ed Independent Theatre Company, Inc.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices
not specifically found herein.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting:
My colleagues reject the Trial Examiner's well-
reasoned, factually supported conclusion that
Respondent violated the Act in its operation of a
job referral system based on membership in the Union.
I disagree.'
The Trial Examiner found that job referrals were
made from Respondent's "Preferred Work Roster"
and that, with one exception, the first 159 names
thereon appeared in the order of the applicant's accept-
ance into membership by Respondent. In addition
to the apparently union-oriented structure of the ros-
ter, the Trial Examiner bottomed his finding of dis-
' While I concur in my colleagues ' dismissal of the complaint with
respect to the collection of allegedly unlawful assessments for the use
of Respondent's hiring hall , I do not rely on their rejection of the
Trial Examiner's finding of overall discrimination in the operation of
the hiring hall
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
criminatlon on a testimonial admission by Washburn
that, except for nonmember Hinely, all names placed
on the roster from 1961 to 1966 were members of
Respondent when added to the list.'
In rejecting these findings, my colleagues make
the surprising assertion that Washburn's admission
is "contrary to the persistent thrust of [his] other
testimony" and claim further that there is "dubious
support in the record for the Trial Examiner's interpre-
tation of Washburn's testimony" as constituting an
admission. Neither position is tenable.
An admission, by its very nature, requires no further
support.' Indeed, it may stand as the only credible
evidence in an otherwise contrived recitation of deeds
or events. It is obvious that the Trial Examiner so
viewed Washburn's testimony for he discredited the
latter's testimony except where corroborated by "doc-
umentary evidence or admissions of adverse witness-
es."" In these circumstances, it is even more remarka-
ble how my colleagues can overcome Washburn's
testimonial admission by the use of "other" but clearly
discredited testimony from the same source, one the
Trial Examiner deemed to be untrustworthy. More-
over, such a ruling is patently prejudicial to the
General Counsel, for, contrary to the intimations
of my colleagues, the General Counsel may well
have adduced other evidence with respect to the
discriminatory structuring of the preferred work roster
but for Washburn's admission.
I also disagree with my colleagues to the extent
they question the Trial Examiner's equating Layne's
request for membership to a request to be placed
on the preferred work list. I seriously doubt that
their position is based on a correct appraisal of the
law dealing with the Respondent's duty of fair repre-
sentation. To charge nonmembers with knowledge
of obscure or technical internal rules and procedures
for gaining positions on Respondent's referral list
and thereby relieve the Union of its legal obligations
is not only an unrealistic appraisal of the facts, but
makes that duty an empty shell.
As I agree with and adopt the Trial Examiner's
findings with respect to the discriminatory nature
of Respondent's preferred work roster and the remedi-
al inadequacy of the new tentative seniority roster,
which is based on work history achieved in operation
of the former, I also agree with and would adopt
his recommended remedy in this regard."
Washburn not only established the Roster but has been in charge
of its operation since its creation in 1961
' Admissions by an untruthful witness are entitled to considerable
weight, perhaps at least as much as those of a truthful witness
° See TXD, fn 14 and accompanying text
See im dissent in Houttrnt Maritime 4csouation Inc 168 NLRB No
83
561
APPENDIX C
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
TO ALL MEMBERS OF, and APPLICANTS FOR
EMPLOYMENT THROUGH. LOCAL 640,
I.A.T.S.E , AFL-CIO,
WE WILL NOT refuse to place Alfred Layne
or any other employee on the job referral list
because of his membership in another local of
this Union and will not otherwise discriminate
against any employee because of his nonmember-
ship in this Union.
WE WILL place Alfred Layne on the job referral
list in his appropriate position according to cur-
rent nondiscriminatory practices.
LOCAL 640, I.A.T.S.E.,
AFL-CIO
(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, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New
York 11201, Telephone 212-596-3535.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ARTHUR M GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner Based upon
a charge filed on August 14, 1967, by Alfred Layne, an
individual , the amended complaint herein issued on June
14, 1968,' alleging that International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, Local 640
(herein called Local 640, the Respondent , or the Union)
had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act).
The complaint alleged that pursuant to various collective-
bargaining agreements between the Union and employers,
including Associated Independent Theatre Company, Inc.,
the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of
motion picture projectionists has the exclusive right to
refer projectionists for employment through its hiring hall
' The original complaint was issued on October 17, 1967
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
procedures and the employers are required to obtain all
of their projectionists from said hiring hall It was alleged
that since on or about February 14, 1967, 6 months prior
to the filing and service of the charge herein, the Union
has failed and refused to place Layne's name on its perma-
nent and temporary job referral lists and has failed and
refused to accord to Layne the seniority to which he
is entitled. Further, since the aforementioned date, the
Union has failed and refused to permit Layne to bid for
permanent jobs and to refer him to employment whether
permanent, temporary, or part time in accordance with
the procedures of its exclusive hiring hall arrangements.
The Union is alleged to have engaged in this conduct
because Layne is not a member of Local 640 but is, instead,
a member of Local 306, IATSE. The complaint further
alleged that since February 14, 1967, the Union "has
required as a prerequisite for referral to employment and
for continued employment of the Charging Party and other
employees the payment to Respondent of moneys including
but not limited to, service fees, referral fees and permit
fees " And that since that date Layne and other employees
have been required to pay these moneys to the Union
as a condition of referral to employment and for continued
employment.
The Respondent Union filed its answer to the amended
complaint on June 19, 1968 As to the material allegations
of the complaint, the answer denied all allegations pertaining
to the placement of Layne on its referral lists or to its
alleged failure to refer him to employment In reference
to the collection of moneys in connection with referral
to employment or continued employment of projectionists,
the answer denied "the implication" that the charge in
this case in any manner referred to these practices; denied
that the money required to be paid was anything but
a uniform assessment on gross wages required of all members
and nonmembers who obtained work through the hiring
hall; and, denied that any moneys other than this uniformly
required assessment was required as a prerequisite for refer-
ral to employment or continued employment. Further, the
answer set forth seven affirmative defenses
1. Application for placement on the permanent job roster
is a condition precedent to being referred by the Union
through the hiring hall procedures for permanent employ-
ment by Associated Independent Theatre and other employ-
ers with whom the Union has a collective-bargaining agree-
ment Layne never applied for a listing of the Union's
permanent job seniority roster.
2 Before April 3, 1964, Layne refused to accept full-
time employment with any employer under contract with
the Union In March 1964 Associated Independent Theatre
demanded that Layne either work a full-time schedule
or leave his job with them. This demand was communicated
to Layne who agreed in writing to accept full-time employ-
ment effective in April 1964. By accepting full-time employ-
ment Layne became eligible for a listing on the permanent
job seniority roster but at no time has he applied for
such a listing. As these events took place more than 6
months before the filing of the charge herein this proceeding
is barred by the time limitations of Section 10(b) of the
Act.
3 In a prior proceeding, Case 29-CB-240, the Union
entered into a stipulation of settlement with the Regional
Director and Charging Party therein, Frank Magnetta,
providing a remedy for the procedures and policies relating
to the Union's hiring hall and referral rosters alleged in
the instant amended complaint to be violative of the Act
Accordingly, to minimize litigation cost, the instant matter
should be treated as an aspect of compliance with the
settlement in Case 29-CB-240
4. The allegations of the amended complaint pertaining
to the Union's hiring hall and referral lists are, to all
intents and purposes, the same as those in the original
complaint In its answer to the original complawt the
Union asked that those issues be treated as part of the
compliance with the settlement in the earlier case. Thereafter
a stipulation providing for referral of these issues to compli-
ance in Case 29-CB-240 was drafted. Although there was
agreement in principle upon the proposed stipulation, the
Regional Director failed to submit the stipulation to the
Union's counsel for execution. So as to minimize litigation
cost, the issues relating to the hiring hall, job referral
lists, and job referrals should be treated in the manner
set forth in the proposed stipulation.
5. The allegations of the amended complaint pertaining
to the levying of service fees, referral fees, and permit
fees for use of the hiring hall and as a condition for
referral to employment and for continued employment bear
no relation to the alleged unfair labor practices set forth
in the underlying charge herein. No amended charge or
other charge has been filed relative to its allegation of
the amended complaint. Accordingly, inclusion of these
allegations in the amended complaint violates Section 10(b)
of the Act.
6. The Union requires members to pay dues and initiation
fees All who obtain work through the hiring hall pay
an assessment computed as a percentage of gross earnings.
The Union's income from dues and initiation fees has
been equal to or greater than its expenses related to its
status as an organization. The income from assessments
on gross earnings had been allocated to the cost of maintain-
ing the hiring hall and to other functions of the Union
as a collective-bargaining agent. Accordingly, there was
no violation of the Act when the Union required Layne
to pay assessments levied on gross earnings derived from
employment obtained through the Union's hiring hall.
7. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute
a violation of the Act by the Union
During the hearing Respondent amended its answer to
state two additional affirmative defenses
8. That for at least 6 weeks prior to filing the charge
herein, the Charging Party and the Regional Office were
engaged in collaboration to entrap the Union into the
possible commission of an unfair labor practice and to
conduct an investigation of the Union's activities without
any charge having been filed against it. These acts go
beyond authorized prefiling assistance, violate the Board's
Rules and Regulations and Section 10 of the Act, constitute
a denial of due processes and improper solicitation of
the charge by a Board agent.
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
9 The General Counsel's acts of improper solicitation
were committed not only prior to the filing of the charge
but continued during the hearing and constitute a calculated
endeavor to frustrate the Respondent's good-faith efforts
to comply with a Board Order and consent decree entered
in earlier litigation. By virtue of this conduct and of the
manner of the conduct of the earlier NLRB litigation
and of the present case, it is manifest that the General
Counsel is employing the processes of the Act in an improper
manner in that it is seeking to coerce a settlement "in
the nature of collapse by the maintenance of litigation
in such a manner as calculatedly to ruin a small union
such as the respondent here."
Respondent asked that the complaint be dismissed as
to those allegations of the amended complaint pertaining
to assessments and that the aspects of the complaint relating
to the hiring hall and referral lists be added to the compliance
proceedings in Case 29-CB-240
The hearing in the instant proceeding commenced in
Brooklyn, New York, on November 20, 1968, and concluded
on February 3, 1969, after 12 days of hearing. All parties
participated at the hearing and were afforded full opportuni-
ty to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to present oral argument, and to
file briefs. The record was closed by order on March
5, 1969, after extensions granted to permit the parties
to submit compilations and stipulations of facts. Briefs
were filed by the Respondent Union and General Counsel.
Upon the entire record,' my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and my reading of the briefs, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Associated Independent Theatre Company, Inc., is a
buying, booking, bookkeeping, and management supervision
company affiliated with 14 other theatre corporations. It
' On or about March 6, 1969, counsel for the Respondent Union
filed a motion to correct transcript of the hearing , and, on May 15,
1969, I issued an Order to Show Cause why the transcript should not
be corrected in specified respects, some part but not all of which corrections
were contemplated by the Respondent 's motion Responses were received
from General Counsel and the Respondent. In addition Respondent filed
a Rejoinder to General Counsel's Response After due consideration
of said Responses and the Rejoinder , an Order Correcting Transcript
and granting Respondent 's Motion of March 6, 1969 , issued on June
3, 1969 Said Order was received into evidence as Trial Examiner's
Exhibit 1
Pursuant to leave granted , stipulations of fact were submitted by the
parties after the close of the hearing Their Stipulation dated February
7, 1969, covering submission of a 6-page document marked "CG Exhibit
38" is hereby marked Trial Examiner's Exhibit 2 Their Stipulation dated
February 7, 1969, covering submission of a 2-page document listing
checks drawn on the Reserve Checking Account of Local 640 is hereby
marked Trial Examiner's Exhibit 3 Their Stipulation dated February
27, 1969, listing the :lames of members of Local 640 initiated during
the years 1967 and 1968 is hereby marked "Trial Examiner's Exhibit
4 " As marked, Trial Examiner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 are received
in evidence and made part of the record herein
563
was stipulated that Associated Independent Theatre Compa-
ny, Inc , and the affiliated theatres including the Amity
Theatre in South Farmingdale , New York (herein called
AIT), are a single employer. The office of AIT and of
the affiliated theatres is maintained at Oceanside, New
York.
During the year ending September 30, 1968, the 14
theatres affiliated with AIT had a combined gross income
of approximately $ 3 million During that same year film
rental of approximately $ 1 million was paid by AIT on
behalf of its affiliated theatres for motion pictures made,
in whole or in part, in States other than the State of
New York In part these films were leased directly from
distributors located outside the State of New York and
the films involved were shipped directly from points outside
the State of New York to theatres within the State of
New York where they were exhibited and then returned
to States outside the State of New York The rental for
such films during the year ending September 30, 1968,
exceeded $50,000. AIT meets the inflow requirements of
the Board 's jurisdictional standards and it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein . Combined
Century Theatres, Inc., 120 NLRB 1379
All but one of the 14 theatres affiliated with AIT are
located in Nassau and Suffolk Counties , New York. The
answer , as amended during the hearing, herein admits that
Local 640 represents all projectionists employed by AIT
except those employed outside Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
which counties constitute the geographic jurisdiction of
Local 640. AIT has maintained a collective-bargaining rela-
tionship with Local 640 since 1958 or 1959. The collective-
bargaining agreement provides that the Union shall have
the exclusive right to refer projectionists through its hiring
hall procedures and that AIT is required to abtam all
of its projectionists from Local 640's hiring hall. Further,
counsel for the Respondent Union was "perfectly willing
to stipulate in behalf of the union that as a matter of
practice AIT and its affiliated theatres will, when they
need a projectionist , call upon the union because that
is the only source of such individuals that is known in
the area." AIT last utilized Respondent 's hiring hall proce-
dures to obtain the services of a projectionist some 2
months before commencement of the instant hearing
AIT is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and meets the Board's
standards for asserting jurisdiction
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO, Local 640 and International Alli-
ance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture
Operators of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO,
Local 306 (herein called Local 306), are, and have been
at all times material herein, labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alfred Layne
1. Layne's work history
Layne, a motion picture projectionist since 1926 and
a member of Local 306 since 1933, moved with his family
in 1948 to Levittown in Nassau County. Layne was then
employed as a full-time projectionist at the Gaity Theatre
in New York City, a position he retains to this day.'
As his New York City job required attendance on only
4 days out of each 10 day cycle, Layne contacted William
Nagengast , business agent of Local 640, seeking employment
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the jurisdiction of that
Union . Nagengast arranged for Layne to work with him
at the Valley Stream Theatre and thereafter referred Layne
to part-time jobs . At times these referrals gave Layne
work for all of his 6 free days, at other times not Layne
testified that other than a 3-month stint to fill in for
a man off sick , the job referrals were mostly from day
to day . These assignments were made by telephone calls
from Nagengast.
Layne testified that in 1948 he earned approximately
$1,350 working in Local 640's jurisdiction This figure
was corroborated by tax withholding statements introduced
by General Counsel. For the years which followed Layne
testified that he earned from work in Nassau and Suffolk
approximately $2,500 in 1949; over $3,000 in 1950; between
$3,500 and $4 ,000 in 1951 , and, that from 1952 until
1960 his earnings from Nagengast 's referrals stabilized at
about $5,000 During this entire period Layne was obligated
to pay an assessment to the Union amounting to 2 percent
of his gross earnings on jobs obtained through the hiring
hall Union records examined during the hearing disclosed
that for the period January 1949 through February 1950,
14 months, Layne paid assessments totaling $10 76, repre-
senting gross earnings of $538 for that period For the
14 months from December 1956 through January 1958,
encompassing the entire year 1957, the Union received
from Layne a total of $56 22 in assessments , which would
represent gross earnings of $2,811. I conclude that Layne
either overstated his earnings in his testimony herein or
underpaid assessments due to the Union . No tax withholding
statements were offered to corroborate Layne's asserted
earnings from 1949 through 1959.
2. Layne and Local 640
Layne testified that beginning in 1949 he sought steady
work in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and membership
in Local 640. At that time, Layne stated, he told Nagengast
that he wanted to become a member of Local 640 and
work only part time in New York City to protect his
pension rights there. Layne claims that Nagengast replied
that he would see what he could do about the request
but always avoided the issue of a steady job for Layne.
It was Layne's testimony that 2 or 3 times a year thereafter
' The theatre has since been renamed the Victoria
he raised with Nagengast his request for membership in
Local 640 but that the Union 's business agent would put
him off.
Nagengast died in January 1961. Layne's testimony stands
uncontradicted and uncorroborated on the record. Charles
Washburn , Nagengast 's stepson , succeeded to the position
of business agent.
On April 6, 1963, Layne wrote to the Respondent Union.
requesting permission to appear before its executive board.
Following his appearance at such a meeting on May 7,
1963, Layne received a letter dated May 19, 1963, from
Walter Lord, the Union's then recording secretary , stating
that his request for membership had been denied as,
The Board is of the opinion that dual membership
in adjoining projection Locals could possibly be detri-
mental to the good and welfare of the members and/
or the Locals involved.
Layne wrote to Local 640 on October 23, 1963, stating
that he had been advised by the assistant International
president of IATSE to contact the Union on the question
of membership . Layne pointed out that he had been a
full-time projectionist at the Amity Theatre since May
1960, and again asked that he be considered for membership.
A month later Lord replied stating that no action on
Layne's request was contemplated at that time.
In August 1964, Layne wrote to the Union pointing
out that over a year had passed since his appearance
before the executive board and asked for reconsideration
of his application for membership . No reply was made
to this letter.
Again , in August 1965, Layne wrote to the Respondent
Union , noting that he had not received a reply to his
last letter and asked to be informed concerning his "standing
in regard to acquiring membership ." Lord replied for the
Union in September , enclosing an application for member-
ship and asked that Layne return the application together
with $150, half of the Union 's initiation fee, by October
8. Thereafter, on October 14, 1965, Lord advised Layne
that his application had been rejected at a membership
meeting of the Union . At the same time Lord returned
Layne's check for $150.
Finally as to membership , on October 21, 1966, Layne
again wrote to Local 640 asking to be considered for
membership , citing the fact that he had worked as a projec-
tionist in the Union 's jurisdiction for the past 18 years.
3. The Amity Theatre
Layne testified that in May 1960 Nagengast called and
asked Layne to take the Amity Theatre as a steady assign-
ment . The Amity Theatre is located in South Farmingdale,
close by to Massapequa where Layne had moved in 1954.
From the time that Layne started this steady job in May
1960 until the Amity Theatre was shut down by a fire
in January 1968, Layne did not request any temporary
assignments from Local 640.
Layne's arrangement with Nagengast was for him to
secure the help needed to keep the job going 7 days a
week . For this purpose Layne hired Milton Feinberg, a
member of Local 306 who lived not too far from the
theatre Feinberg covered the projection booth the days
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
that Layne was not there and they split the salary from
the Amity Theatre Feinberg left the job in 1963.
On March 20, 1964, Business Agent Washburn received
a letter from an official of AIT complaining about the
failure to assign a full-time projectionist to the Amity
Theatre with provision for a relief man only on the regular
projectionist's 1 day off each week. AIT insisted that the
regular arrangement be installed at the Amity Theatre.
Washburn first called Layne and then wrote to him transmit-
ting AIT's complaint and insisting that Layne either accept
a regular 6-day per week assignment at the Amity Theatre
or leave the job Layne accepted the new conditions and
stayed at the Amity Theatre where he works to this day.
As evidenced by tax withholding statements introduced
as exhibits, Layne's earnings at the Amity Theatre rose
steadily from 1960, making a sharp rise in 1964 when
he accepted the job on a full-time basis °
Except on weekends and in the summer the Amity Theatre
has only one shift per day, from 7 p.m. to midnight
On Saturday and Sunday and during the summer months
the theatre is open from 1 p in. until 11 p.m or midnight
This constitutes two shifts At all times that he was employed
at the Amity Theatre, Layne was working at the Victoria
Theatre in New York City. Since February 1967, Layne
has been scheduled to work 4 days out of every 8 at
the Victoria Theatre, working 2 day shifts and 2 nights
in each 4 day turn When working the day shift Layne
is able to work at both theatres on the same day. However,
when scheduled to work the night shift at the Victoria
Theatre (except on Thursday which is his day off on
Long Island), Layne must arrange for a substitute to work
that shift. This he does without notifying the theatre manage-
ment. Layne testified that at all times he worked his regular
turn at the Amity Theatre.
In January 1968 a fire at the Amity Theatre resulted
in Layne being temporarily out of work The theatre
reopened on June 26 and Layne returned to his regular
full-time schedule there. During this layoff Layne wrote
to Local 640 Business Agent Washburn asking for the
procedure in securing temporary work until the Amity
Theatre reopened. Washburn replied, advising Layne to
fill out an "Application For Placement on Temporary Job
List A," enclosing a copy of the application. Thereafter,
although he did not place Layne's name on Job List A,
Washburn referred Layne to temporary jobs during the
period the Amity Theatre was closed for repairs. As noted,
except for this period in 1968 when the theatre was closed
because of fire, Layne did not ask for any temporary
assignments from Local 640.5
B. The Union's Hiring Hall and Job Referral Lists
1. Operation of the hiring hall
In the operation of its exclusive hiring hall and job
referral procedures Local 640 not only exercises complete
• Layne's wages from the Amity Theatre by year were 1960, $3,603,
1961, $4,365; 1962, $4,373, 1963, $5,440; 1964, $8,089, 1965, $10,073,
1966, $10,790, and 1967, $10,700
' The foregoing account of Layne's employment at the Amity Theatre
is based on his and Washburn's testimony which do not conflict
565
control over job assignments, but as well, it unilaterally
determines when and if a job shall be put out for bid.
Layne's job at the Amity Theatre was assigned to him
by Nagengast without any bid and it has never been offered
for bid under the hiring hall procedures Similarly, the
Thursday relief stint at the Amity Theatre was assigned
by Washburn without going through the bidding process.
Washburn testified that relief jobs are combined to provide
a week's work and put out for bid together with full-
time openings.
On the matter of job referrals, the Union's constitution
and bylaws, as adopted in October 1964, provides:
Article II
Seniority Rules
SECTION 5.
1. Members whose names appear on the Charter
in the order of their sequence.
2 Members from date of obligation, or when more
than one man has been obligated at the same time,
the date of application shall previal, or as the member's
name appears in the Recording Secretary's membership
book.
3. All steady work shall be given out by Seniority.
4. Emergency and extra work shall be distributed
equitably by the Business Representative Any differ-
ences arising shall be settled by the Executive Board.
5 If for any reason, depletion of manpower is neces-
sary in any theatre, member having the longest period
of employment in the projection room shall be retained
6. If two (2) or more members started their employ-
ment the same day Seniority of membership shall pre-
vail.
7 Bids for jobs shall be accepted only from those
members who have served a minimum of six months
as full time gainfully employed motion picture projec-
tionists in our jurisdictional area-immediately preced-
ing the availability of said jobs
Charles Washburn, the Union's busines agent, administers
tht. hiring hall. His duties as specified in the Constitution
and Bylaws provide, in pertinent part:
Article VI
Duties of Officers
Business Representative
Section 7
It shall be the duty of the Business Representative
. [to] use all legal means to secure employment
for men of this Union where their services are necessary.
The Business Representative shall put men to work
in order of their seniority in this Union, excepting
Road Men. . . He shall strive to distribute all extra
work among the members equitably...
A miasma of testimony and exhibits was developed at
the hearing concerning the Union's operation of the hiring
hall and more particularly concerning the various list of
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
projectionists purportedly compiled and utilized by the
Union for the assignment of jobs through the hiring hall.
There are three lists in current use for job referrals through
the hiring hall, the Preferred Work Roster, Job List "A,"
and Temporary Job List "C "
The Preferred Work Roster6 lists projectionists working
in the jurisdiction of Local 640 in the order of seniority
positions assigned to them by the Union. Washburn testified
and exhibits confirmed that when jobs are put out to
bid, the seniority number assigned on the Preferred Work
Roster determines who shall receive the job.
"Job List `A,"' as described by Washburn, is a roster
of men who do not have full-time jobs and are either
partially or fully unemployed. Next to each name on Job
List "A" appears that individual's seniority number taken
from the Preferred Work Roster. Only men listed on the
Preferred Work Roster can be placed on Job List "A "
Additional information appears on this roster stating each
individual's availability to work, in some cases listing the
days of the week on which the man can work, in others
that the listee is in military service, and as to others
that their availability is unknown. Washburn testified that
men listed on Job List "A" have first preference for any
work.
Temporary Job List "C"was described by Washburn
as a roster of part-time workers Two such lists are in
evidence, one dated October 1, 1966, the other November
1, 1966, Layne's name heads both lists. Washburn testified
that before calling persons on Job List "C" to assign
jobs he first calls the Preferred Work Roster and the
"A" list. In his words, the "C" list comes "the last of
anything " Only if a man on the "C" list lived close
to a job which had to be covered would he receive any
type of priority for the job assignment.
The record contains four Preferred Work Rosters, three
bearing the date September 1, 1966, and none alike. In
addition there are two different Job List "A" and two
of Temporary Job List "C."
Potential listees on the various referral rosters achieved
their positions during his term as business agent, Washburn
testified, by applying either in writing or by word of mouth.
The record contains five different application forms used
by Local 640. One form is a printed "Employees Application
Form" prepared and sold by a law form printer. The
others are mimeographed forms variously headed, "Applica-
tion for A Regular Job," "Application for Placement on
Local 640 Seniority Roster," "Application for Placement
on Temporary Job List A,` and "Application For Place-
ment on Temporary Job List B (For Employment in Nassau
and Suffolk County)." (Emphasis supplied.)'
Also referred to in the record as the "Permanent Roster" and the
"Permanent Seniority Roster "
This form carries the note, "You do not qualify for placement
on the temporary job list A unless you are on the seniority roster
and are totally unemployed " This is the form Layne completed at
Washburn 's direction on January 30, 1968
This application form carries the notation, "Only applicants who
are listed on the seniority roster and are currently employed may file
for placement on this list " The copy of this form in evidence was
completed by an applicant in January 1964
General Counsel contends that Job List "A" is spurious,
manufactured for the purpose of this proceeding to prove
by the commingling of members and nonmembers thereon
that the referral system is nondiscriminatory. I do not
deem it necessary for the purpose of decision herein to
reach that issue Determination of the discriminatory or
nondiscriminatory nature of the Preferred Work Roster
is the touchstone of those aspects of the complaint dealing
with the Union's exclusive hiring hall As to Temporary
Job List "C," for whatever value to a projectionist position
thereon may yield, Layne's name appears first Listing
on Job List "A" is conditioned on first securing a position
on the Preferred Work Roster Washburn so testified and
the fact that Layne could not achieve a spot on the "A"
list in 1968 after the Amity Theatre fire, although he
filled out an "A" list application sent to him by Washburn,
is explained by his failure to possess a Preferred Work
Roster seniority number. Accordingly, since jobs put out
for bid are assigned on the basis of the relative Preferred
Work Roster seniority standing of those who bid, findings
on the complaint allegation relating to Layne's opportunity
to bid for jobs through the hiring hall as well as that
concerning his actual placement on the referral lists, will
be controlled, in whole or in part, by the evidence adduced
about the Preferred Work Roster.
2. The Preferred Work Roster
The evidence relating to the Preferred Work Roster con-
sists almost entirely of Washburn's testimony and documents
in the record, including the four rosters.' Washburn testified
that when he took over as business agent in 1961 the
listings on whatever work roster existed was based solely
upon initiation dates into Local 640 Washburn testified
at one point that at the time he became business agent
there was an established list which he continued, adding
names to the end as men applied for work or to go
on the list. At a different point Washburn testified that
when he took over there was a wooden box containing
cards listing names and addresses of all union and nonunion
men, whether they were working or ready to work or
part-time workers, and, using these cards, Washburn worked
with the Union's then president and financial secretary
to establish a roster based on union seniority records.
In any event at no point did Washburn state other than
that the first approximately 100 names on the Preferred
Work Roster are ranked solely on the basis of their initiation
date into the Union In one form or another those names
constituted the Union's preferred work roster when Wash-
burn became business agent.
As to how he added new names to the Preferred Work
Roster, Washburn again related varying procedures He
first testified that new names were added to the bottom
of the list as men applied to him for work or to go
' In addition Arthur Ringfield, a nonmember of Local 640, who is
listed on the current Preferred Work Roster, testified about his work
history as a projectionist in Local 640 's jurisdiction However, his testimony
does not go to the issue of how the Preferred Work Roster (and the
method and history of its compilation), affect Layne and his right to
bid on jobs
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
on the list. At another point Washburn stated that the
list he took over in February or March 1961 ran through
number 105, Francis Bader, Jr, who had an initiation
date of September 10, 1960 (The Preferred Work Roster
of April 1, 1961, in evidence as an exhibit, lists 111 names,
the earliest with a date of September 29, 1926, and the
last, that of William Conway, with a date of November
12, 1958. Francis Bader, Jr., does not appear on the April
1, 1961, roster) Washburn testified that the names which
he added to the list and assigned numbers 106 through
159, were, with one exception, those of members in order
of their initiation into Local 640 On one of the Preferred
Work Rosters in evidence, penned in next to all names
running through number 159 and next to a considerable
number of other names thereafter, are dates which Respond-
ent's counsel agreed were union initiation dates Position
number 159 on this Preferred Work Roster carries the
initiation date of January 11, 1966 Based upon this stipula-
tion and upon the particular version in Washburn's testimo-
ny which it corroborates, I find that at least until January
11, 1966, all names on the Preferred Work Roster were
placed there as a result of initiation into Local 640 and
that only by achieving membership could a projectionist
be listed on that roster.10
Beginning with number 106 on the several Preferred
Work Rosters dated September 1, 1966, typed figures repre-
senting a month and a year follow the name of the listed
projectionist. In his testimony Washburn first stated that
this date represented the time the man started to work.
Subsequently, Washburn testified that he could not remem-
ber whether that date represented when the man started
to work or when he went on the Preferred Work Roster.
Finally, Washburn begged the issue by declaring that it
could be the work starting date for one man and the
date of placement on the Preferred Work Roster for another
However, based on Respondent's records placed in evidence
it is clear that through at least number 159 (and of the
next 7 names, 6 carry an initiation date of October 4,
1966) the initiation date determined placement on the Pre-
ferred Work Roster. As the initiation date in all cases
vary from the typed month and year which follows the
name, the latter dates, as Washburn first testified, must
be the dates on which the individual first went to work."
3. The Massapequa Drive-In job
On July 29, 1968, Layne received from the Union a
bid form which included an opening at the Massapequa
10 That one nonmember managed to achieve a listing on the Preferred
Work Roster does not change the pattern of 158 other listings
" Even this conclusion cannot be invariably true Paul Bader is number
183 on the Preferred Work Roster He was initiated into the Union
on October 4, 1966 Bader's "Employees Application Form" is dated
June 20, 1965 He filled out an "Application for Regular Job" on August
2, 1965 Yet the month and date following Bader's name on the Preferred
Work Roster is "3/65 "
George Quarituis, Jr , is number 151 on the Preferred Work Roster
He was initiated into Local 640 on January 11, 1966 Quantuis ' " Employee
Application Form" is dated January 12, 1964 His "Application For
Placement on Temporary Job List 'B,"' which carries the notation "Mem-
bers Son," is undated The month and year following Quarituis' name
on the Preferred Work Roster is "3/63 " Yet, Quarituis was in the
Navy from October 12, 1960, until November 14, 1963
567
Drive-In Theatre, located about half a mile from his home
and close to the Long Island Rail Road Prior to this
Layne had received other invitations to bid, but this was
the first bid he submitted because of the location of the
theatre, the fact that projectionists at drive-in theatres work
only at night which dovetailed with his job at the Victoria
Theatre in New York, and because drive-in theatres general-
ly pay a higher rate than ordinary theatres. Layne was
interested only in this job and would not have taken another
position paying the same salary scale 5 or 10 miles from
his home
Some 30 or 40 days later the job was awarded to Raymond
Escorcia who was listed number 72 on the Preferred Work
Roster and who had been initiated into Local 640 on
October 14, 1958 Escorcia had been on the initial Preferred
Work Roster compiled by Washburn in 1961 solely on
the basis of union initiation date. The positions on the
roster first made by Washburn at that time continued
on all Preferred Work Rosters used for bid purposes until
the New Tentative Seniority Roster was first utilized in
October 1968.12 Thus, as Washburn admitted, Escorcia
received this job by virtue of the Preferred Work Roster
position he had been given solely because of his initiation
into Local 640.
In any event, Layne could not have been awarded this job
or any job for which he might submit a bid because he had
no seniority number on the Preferred Work Roster.
Washburn asserted that Layne had never requested a
number on the Preferred Work Roster I find this claim to
be specious on two counts First, until at least January
1966, date of initiation determined place on the Preferred
Work Roster and in 158 out of 159 listings membership in
Local 640 was a condition precedent to a position on the
roster. Application for membership thus was the only road
to a place on the Preferred Work Roster On May 7, 1963,
Layne appeared before the Union's executive board
requesting membership in Local 640. Thus application was
denied because it "could possibly be detrimental to the good
and welfare of the members and/or the Locals involved."
Again on October 23, 1963, in August 1964, and August
1965, and finally on October 21, 1966, Layne asked to be
considered for membership in the Union and his requests
were denied As application for membership was equal to
application for listing on the Preferred Work Roster, it
cannot be said that during the years 1963 through 1966
Layne was not consistently seeking a number of the
Preferred Work Roster
However, I reject Layne's claim of having applied for
membership in the years of Nagengast's incumbency as
union business agent The sole support for this assertion
is Layne's own testimony of conversations with a deceased
person." Based on my observation of Layne while testifying
I do not credit him unless he is corroborated by documentary
evidence or admissions of adverse witnesses 14 My reserva-
" See sec III, B, 4, "The New Tentative Seniority Roster," infra
" Cf Calandra Photo, Inc, 151 NLRB 660, 669 , fn 23, Chun King
Sales, Inc, 126 NLRB 851, 864-865 , Sam Wallick, d/b/a Wallick and
Schwalm Corp, 95 NLRB 1262 , 1263, enfd 198 F 2d 477, 483 (CA
3)
" I view Washburn 's testimony in the same way
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions about Layne's credibility are buttressed by the inconsis-
tency between his claimed earnings and the assessments
he paid to the Union . Moreover , Layne demonstrated an
ability to preserve evidence favorable to him (his tax with-
holding statements of 1948 and those for the years following
his employment at the Amity Theatre and the correspond-
ence pertaining to his efforts to secure membership in
the Union in 1963 and the years which followed). The
contrast between the record of union rejection Layne built
in 1963 and in the years which followed with his unsupported
work concerning his alleged overtures to Nagengast between
1948 and 1960 raises further questions about his unsupported
testimony."
The second basis upon which I reject Washburn 's claim
that Layne never sought listing on the Preferred Work
Roster arises from events occurring within the 10(b) period.16
Washburn testified that men were placed on the Preferred
Work Roster within the 10(b) period on the basis of oral
requests only Five men listed on Temporary Job List
"C" were transferred to the Preferred Work Roster within
that period and Washburn testified that their requests could
have been oral. Charles Orlando went on the Preferred
Work Roster in January 1968 and again Washburn acknowl-
edged that the request for listing may have been oral.
In any event Washburn did not insist that one of the
many application forms be utilized.
On July 7, 1967, well within the 10(b) period, Layne
unequivocally stated in writing to Washburn
I have always been interested in securing a better
paying job with better working conditions . . . you
never notified me of a steady full timejob opening for
which I could apply.
On September 27, 1967, the Union sent Layne a bid
list, the first he ever received . Although this was an empty
gesture because without a seniority number on the Preferred
Work Roster his bids would not be honored , it in no
way militates against a finding that Washburn recognized
Layne's interest in permanent job openings . If oral requests
by others were enough to place them on the Preferred
Work Roster, certainly this written notice by Layne should
have been sufficient to earn him a listing on the roster.
I conclude that Layne was denied a place on the Preferred
Work Roster in continuing effectuation of the Union's
concern that his membership and/or listing on the roster
"could possibly be detrimental to the good and welfare
of the members [of Local 640 ] and/or the Locals [640
and 306] involved ""
However, although I find that the Union had unlawfully
refused to place Layne's name on its job referral lists
" These efforts by Layne to secure membership and a place on the
Preferred Work Roster antedated the 6-month period preceding the filing
of the charge herein
" ° Sec 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61
Stat 136, 73 Stat 519, 29 US C, Sei. 160(h)) provides in pertinent
part
no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice
occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge
with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person
against whom such charge is made
Letter dated May 19, 1963, from the Union's recording secretary
to Layne
and to accord to him his proper seniority, I do not find
that this discrimination tainted the award of the Massapequa
Drive-In job to Escorcia rather than to Layne. Based upon
my findings above, I conclude that Layne first sought
membership in the Union and a listing on the Preferred
Work Roster in 1963. Although the Union's refusal to
grant him membership with concomitant listing on the
Preferred Work Roster was discriminatory, under the rules
uniformly applied his seniority on the roster could only
run from that time. Thus, even absent this discrimination
in 1963 Layne's listing on the Preferred Work Roster
would have postdated Escorcia's seniority by almost 10
years and his bid would have been rejected in the normal
course of events. Accordingly, since Layne testified that
his interest in bidding was limited to the Massapequa
Drive-In job and to no other open position, I shall recom-
mend dismissal of the complaint allegation that the Union
failed and refused to permit Layne to bid for jobs under
the hiring hall procedures.
4 The New Tentative Seniority Roster
For purposes of assignment of jobs put out for bid
in October 1968, the Union utilized the seniority positions
on its New Tentative Seniority Roster. This roster, compiled
during the latter part of 1967 and 1968, was presented
to Nassau and Suffolk projectionist under cover of a letter
and memorandum from the Union's attorney on September
27, 1968 Pursuant to what it deemed to be its obligations
to comply with the Board's Decision and Order in Case
29-CB-240,18 the Union embarked on an ambitious program
to compile a completely new referral roster, free of any
favoritism toward union members If only because of
Respondent's Third and Fourth Affirmative Defenses which
urge referral of the instant matter, insofar as the allegations
pertain to the hiring hall and referral list, to the compliance
aspects of Case 29-CB-240, some examination must be
given here to that new Tentative Roster.1°
Robert Kranzler, the Union's accountant, credibly testi-
fied that after ascertaining the name of every projectionist
employed in Nassau and Suffolk Counties as of a certain
date in 1967, questionnaires were prepared and mailed
asking for earnings from work in Local 640's jurisdiction
from 1925 to date. Where the projectionist was unable
to recall the desired information he was asked to grant
permission for the Union to secure the necessary data
from the Social Security Administration. Follow-up ques-
tionnaires were mailed to those who did not respond Where
no reply was received, information as to an individual's
work history and earnings was solicited from the officers
of Local 640 and members of long standing. In the early
part of 1968 Kranzler met with Lord, the Union's financial
secretary, Pierre Jelis, a past president and longtime member
of the Union, and the Union's attorney in an attempt
to fill in incomplete questionnaires. The questionnaire
requested earnings information of the basis of calendar
" Unpublished
" There is no indication in the record that Regional Office personnel
responsible for compliance with Board orders in any way participated
in the asserted compliance with Case 29-CB-240
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES 569
quarters and position on the new seniority roster was deter-
mined by the number of calendar quarters awarded to
each man, with starting date in the industry utilized only
to break ties should they arise The task was not an easy
one because earnings had to be checked against the pay
scale in effect at each theatre at any particular time to
determine whether the prerequisite number of weeks to
secure credit for the quarter had been worked by the
projectionist involved Kranzler testified that credit was
to be awarded for each quarter in which a man had worked
3 or 4 weeks as determined from his earnings. After the
returned questionnaires had been placed in a first, tentative
order, Kranzler turned the entire study over to the Union's
attorney and his connection with the project ended
Walter Lord, the Union's financial secretary, testified
that where questionnaires were not complete he attempted
to fill in the missing data rom information he obtained
from union records, both those that he maintained and
those turned over to him by his predecessor. Layne did
not return a questionnaire to the Union. In Laynes's case
Lord completed a questionnaire giving Layne credit for
14 calendar quarters Lord testified that the criteria for
awarding quarters which he applied, claiming to follow
instructions from Kranzler, was employment for a minimum
of 6 or 7 weeks in the 13 and earnings of $1,000. Working
from assessments paid on gross earnings, Lord attempted
to compute the gross earnings.
Without attempting an exhaustive analysis of the New
Tentative Seniority Roster, it is readily apparent that in
Layne's case the award of 14 quarters was incorrect From
1961 on, Layne earned over $4,000 per annum,20 working
steadily at the Amity Theatre Putting aside 1968 when
the theatre was closed because of fire, Layne's earnings
for the years 1961 through 1967 should have yielded to
him a credit of 28 quarters.21
But aside from errors in compiling data for individuals,
the New Tentative Seniority Roster carries its own fatal
infirmity which precludes it from furnishing satisfactory
compliance with the remedial order I shall recommend
to cure the discriminatory nature of the Union's referral
rosters. By determining roster position on the basis of
earnings from or time worked on jobs obtained through
the hiring hall in which the discriminatory Preferred Work
Roster controlled job assignments, the new roster perpetu-
ates the bias against nonunion projectionists who could
not bid for or attain steady work Thus, a member initiated
into the Union in 1955 and on the Preferred Work Roster
from that time had an absolute preference for work and
earnings over a nonunion projectionist working in Nassau
or Suffolk since 1950 but on Temporary Job List "C"
and standing last in line when jobs were handed out.
It stands to reason that the member could more easily
have attained the $1,000 of earnings or 6-7 weeks of
work that Lord looked for in crediting calendar quarters
for position on the new roster
See in 4, supra
" There is no suggestion that an understatement by Layne of assessments
due to the Union dunng that period would have prevented such a
computation by Lord
Thus, its basic assumptions preclude the New Tentative
Seniority Roster from serving as compliance with a directive
to establish a nondiscriminatory referral roster. Accordingly,
determinations by the Union's unilaterally selected umpire
as to proper placing of individuals on the new list on
the basis of those unacceptable criteria are irrelevant to
the instant proceeding."
C. Local 640 Assessments
At all times material herein the Union has required
that all projectionists (members and nonmembers) obtaining
employment through its exclusive hiring hall pay an assess-
ment equal to 2 percent of gross earnings from such employ-
ment as a fee for use of the referral system
In evidence is a notice from the Union to nonmembers,
entitled.
NOTICE TO ALL NON-MEMBERS
SUBJECT. HIRING HALL AND REGISTRATION FEE
Terms and Conditions of Registration Fees for Non-
Members
This notice stated that effective April 1, 1963, a nonmem-
ber wishing "to register or maintain his registration for
employment at the Local 640, ITASE Union Hiring Hall"
was required to pay to the Union 2 percent of gross
wages received from jobs which was referred to as "a
registration fee." The notice explains that "[t]his fee is
solely intended to cover the non-member's pro rata share
of the Union's cost in operating and maintaining its Hiring
Hall for the benefit and convenience of all persons who
seek jobs with Local 640 contracted employers " The notice
goes on to detail the time and method of payment, that
such registration fees are not refundable, and that the
Union makes no guarantees as to "either the length of
employment or future employment to non-members paying
the registration fee any more than they can make similar
guarantees to members paying dues, a substantial portion
of which (at least equal to the registration fee) is necessarily
allocated to the ( )st of operating and maintaining the
Hiring Hall's faci ',ities and services for the benefit of all
persons who seek employment with Local 640 contracted
employers."
In fact, members not only pay the same 2 percent assess-
ment as do nonmembers, but also pay annual dues of
$30 and an initiation fee of $300.
General Counsel seeks a remedy requiring the Union
to refund all assessments paid by Layne and others similarly
situated during the 10(b) period because they were denied
the use of the hiring hall In any event, General Counsel
urges the Union should be required to refund to nonmembers
any excess in assessment collected beyond their pro rata
" Under these circumstances it is unnecessary to consider the fairness
or regularity of the hearings before the Union's umpire or whether
the Union's creation of the umpire position to resolve protests against
individual roster placement established an arbitration procedure to which
the Board may properly defer Jos Schhtz Brewing Company, 175 NLRB
No 23, and cases cited in in 3
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
share of the costs of operating the hiring hall Respondent
contends that the hiring hall was nondiscriminatory and
that the assessments were properly levied
I reject General Counsel's plea for reimbursement of
all assessments collected from nonmembers during the 10(b)
period. While I have found that the procedures of the
hiring hall discriminated against Layne and nonmembers
by barring them from bidding for steady jobs put out
to bid, the evidence established that Layne and other mem-
bers obtained work through the hall. Indeed, Layne was
referred by the Union to steady, full-time work at the
Amity Theatre and when the theatre was closed by fire
was referred to other part-time jobs by Washburn. The
very nature of the assessment, a percentage of wages earned
from hiring hall job referrals, precludes a finding of blanket
discrimination against nonmembers in the operation of the
hiring hall Only to the extent that a nonmember earns
wages from employment derived from the hiring hall is
he required to pay the assessment levied to finance its
operations Accordingly, in these circumstances, I deem
an order requiring reimbursement of all assessments levied
on nonmembers to be unwarranted.
"However, requiring nonmembers to pay an unreasonably
high amount for the use of the facilities operated by a
union . infringes the right of employees, guaranteed
by Section 7, to refrain from assisting labor organizations
" Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers
[Nassau and Suffold Contractors Assn ] v N L R B,
321 F.2d 130, 139 (C A. 2) Kranzler, the Union's independ-
ent accountant, prepared schedules for 1967 and the first
9 months of 1968 summarizing total union expenditures
for those periods and allocating those expenses between
the cost of collective bargaining and hiring hall and charges
incurred by the Union as an institution.21 Under the rule
of Local 138, supra, nonmembers utilizing the hiring hall
can be required to help defray only those expenses attributa-
ble to the hiring hall and collective bargaining In dividing
total expenses between the two areas of activity, Kranzler
was more rigorous in allocating expenses to the Union
as an institution than was the General Counsel in Local
138, supra.2a Accordingly, I accept Kranzler's figures for
the purpose of determining whether assessments collected
from nonmembers "were reasonably related to the value
of the services provided by the union " Local 138, supra,
p. 136.
Kranzler's figures disclose total union expenses in 1967
of $41,369 Of that total, $29,549 was allocated to Collective
Bargaining and the Hiring Hall and the balance, $11,820,
is attributed to maintaining the Union as an institution.25
In that same period, the Union callected from members
and nonmembers, assessments totaling $35,052 Members
paid $28,543 in assessments and nonmembers contributed
$6,509 The figures for the first 9 months of 1968 again
show a surplus after subtracting costs allocable to the
' See schedules set forth in Appendixes A and B attached
" See Trial Examiner Reel's analysis and the supporting schedules
in J J Hagerty, Inc, 153 NLRB 1375, 1379-87
" The fact that Kranzler omitted certain institutional costs from the
computation does not affect the ultimate result, as the controlling figures
are those for operating the hiring hall and collective bargaining and
the assessment collected
Hiring Hall and Collective Bargaining ($26,077) from the
total assessments received ($28,989, $23,425 from members
and $5,564 from nonmembers). Under the rule of J. J.
Hagerty, Inc, supra, enfd. sub nom N L R. B. v. Local
138, International Union of Operating Engineers, 385 F 2d
874 (C.A. 2), I shall recommend that the Union reimburse
each nonmember who paid assessments during the 10(b)
period a sum of money representing his pro rata share
of the excess of assessments paid against total cost attributa-
ble to hiring hall and collective-bargaining expenses 26
With his analysis of union expenses Kranzler prepared
three alternative bases for justifying the collection from
nonmembers of assessments in excess of the costs of operat-
ing the hiring hall and conducting collective bargaining.
The first two such alternative justifications are computed
on the basis of allocating those costs equally to each individ-
ual, member or nonmember, who in anyway utilized the
hiring hall during the period in question This approach
ignores benefits derived and, as Kranzler conceded, the
assumptions on which such allocations are based are dam-
aged if some of the projectionists using the hall were
denied equal service. In view of the discrimination practiced
against nonmembers in bidding for steady work through
the hall any attempted justification for assessments in excess
of properly allocated expenses based on equality of burden
must fail
The third alternative sought to demonstrate that the
income from dues and initiations were approximately suffi-
cient to cover the Union's institutional expenses. Therefore,
the argument goes, the excess in assessments collected over
hiring hall expenses was not used to subsidize the Union
itself and did not impinge on the right of nonmembers
to refrain from assisting a labor organization Whether
true or not,27 the fact remains that the excess assessments
paid by nonmembers remain in the Union's control, the
money is not required for operation of the hiring hall
16 Pursuant to my ruling made during the hearing certain offers of
proof by General Counsel were submitted in writing after the close
of hearing All such offers are rejected for the reasons stated below
Offer 1-The proof offered related to excerpts from Washburn's testimo-
ny in Case 29-CB-240 That testimony was used in this proceeding
only to test Washburn's credibility The Offer of Proof is rejected as
such evidence is cumulative since Washburn's testimony carried its own
death wound
Offer 2-General Counsel offered evidence to prove that Job List
A was compiled in a manner different from that claimed by Washburn
I have found that Job List A (and how it was compiled) does not
control determination of violation in this case Accordingly, Offer 2
is rejected as irrelevant
Offers 3 and 4-The evidence in these Offers of Proof pertains to
dealings of Local 640 with members of the so-called "Empire" group
Evidence as to Empire men is beyond the scope of the pleadings in
this case, and, as with
Offers 7 and 8-relating to Frank Magnetta, the offers are rejected
as immaterial and irrelevant and beyond the scope of the pleadings
Offer 5-This offer of proof sought to show Local 640's control over
jobs put out to bid Because this control was admitted by Washburn,
Offer 5 is rejected as the evidence here offered is cumulative
Offer 6-Here General Counsel offered to prove the existence of certain
of Local 640's assets This offer is rejected because in determining the
legality of its assessments, evidence as to Local 640's assets is immaterial
" At this point the omission of certain union institutional costs from
the study makes the computations unreliable and leaves the argument
without support
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
and may be used by the Union for whatever other purposes
it sees fit, a decision in which the nonmembers may not
participate
Finally, Respondent seeks dismissal of the complaint
allegations relating to the hiring hall assessments on the
claim that these allegations "bear no relation to the alleged
unfair labor practices described in the . charge." The
charge, which alleged violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act, stated as the basis of the charge that
Since on or about March 19, 1967, the above named
labor organization by its officers, agents and representa-
tives, has discriminated against Alfred Layne, an
employee of A.I T. Theatres, with regard to placement
on the Union's permanent seniority list and with regard
to his vacation pay and schedule because of his non-
membership in the above mentioned labor organization
By these and other acts the above mentioned labor
organization has restrained and coerced, and continues
to restrain and coerce members and other employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
Without belaboring the point it is clear that a charge
of discrimination "with regard to placement on the Union's
permanent seniority list" is sufficiently related to assessments
levied for job referrals to support complaint allegations
pertaining to those assessments Lubank Co, 175 NLRB
No 36 28
TV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with AIT's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
" During the hearing Respondent added affirmative defenses alleging
that counsel for General Counsel and Layne had collaborated to entrap
the Union and that there had been improper prefiling assistance and
improper solicitation of a charge by a Board agent Additionally, the
litigation was asserted to have been conducted in an improper manner
in an effort to force the Union to agree to settle the case by way
of "collapse" so as to avoid financial ruin Layne testified to a meeting
with counsel for General Counsel some time before he filed the charge
when he visited the Regional Office seeking information Layne's visit
was unsolicited and unannounced At her request Layne informed General
Counsel of the events to that point in time and she explained the
6-month limitation in Sec 10(b) of the Act Although Layne may have
stated his intention to write to the Union about pension benefits, he
was not advised to write any letters to the Union In addition to his
visit to the Board's Regional Office, Layne had approached the New
York Civil Liberties Union and the New York State Commission on
Human Rights After his visit Layne wrote one letter to counsel for
General Counsel advising her of certain correspondence he had had
with the Union and expressing his opinion about the Union's actions
and motives Thereafter, Layne filed the charge, wrote a detailed letter
to the Regional Office explaining the basis of the charge, and gave
an affidavit in support of his allegations Based on these facts, I find
that counsel for the General Counsel acted well within the limits of
prefiling assistance spelled out in Sec 10012 of the National Labor
Relations Board Field Manual, July 1967 As to the conduct of the
litigation , the very nature of the evidence adduced extended the time
of hearing and the difficulty of obtaining racords under Respondent's
sole control did not ease the situation
571
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union operated its
exclusive hiring hall so as to favor union members in
bids for steady work and required nonmembers to pay
excessive assessments on wages earned from jobs obtained
through the hiring hall, I shall recommend that the Union
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it be
required to take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act
The offending aspect of the hiring hall operation is that
of the seniority roster So long as job assignments are
made on the basis of a seniority roster which directly
or indirectly favors union members over nonmembers, the
vice continues Any system of placement which gives credit
for service based upon earnings from jobs within the jurisdic-
tion of the Union or any other measure of time worked,
would merely perpetuate the discrimination practiced
Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Union, in conjunc-
tion with the Regional Director for Region 29 and subject
to his approval, be required to revise the seniority roster
used for job referral purposes to integrate Alfred Layne
and others similarly circumstanced into a place on such
list which will reflect their time of entry into employment
within the jurisdiction of the Union, taking into account
their availability for employment since that time.
To remedy the Union's collection from nonmembers of
excessive assessments on salaries earned from jobs obtained
through the hiring hall, I shall recommend that the Union
be ordered to refund to nonmembers their pro rata share
of the excess of assessments paid against the total costs
attributable to operation of the hiring hall and the conduct
of collective bargaining underlying the hall and the contract
conditions of the jobs covered. To avoid unnecessary cost
to the Union 29 I shall recommend that such reimbursement
be made annually, 60 days after the books have been
audited and allocations made between expenses of the Union
as an entity and those of the hiring hall and collective
bargaining.30
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and on
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Associated Independent Theatre Company, Inc, is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 640, and International Alli-
" Accountant Kranzler testified that the Union's books are audited
once each year
10 In the event such an annual audit and allocation of expenses should
disclose that the costs of the hiring hall and collective bargaining exceeded
the total of assessments received, this Recommended Order should not
preclude the Union from assessing a supplementary pro rata levy on
the wages of nonmembers earned during that period
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL- within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
CIO, Local 306, are labor organizations within the meaning 5. Respondent has not engaged in other unfair labor
of Section 2(5) of the Act. practices as alleged in the complaint.
3. By engaging in the conduct described in section III,
above Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
APPENDIX A
LOCAL 640, IATSE
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES-1967
ALLOCATED TO
Gen. and Adm. Total Collective Bargaining Union
and Hiring Hall
Salanes
Bus. Rep. 12375 12375
Walter Lord 4200 3150 1050
Andrew Marghn 900 675 225
Henry Keiper 825 825
Office 1228 1228
Amts pd to or for 1270 1270
officers-lost
time
Officers expenses 2780 2502 278
Payroll taxes 803 722 81
Welfare Fund &
Ret. Fund 1186 928 258
Tel & Ans & tracing
service 3210 3210
Auditing 1200 600 600
Office rent 1296 1296
Hall rental & meet-
ing expenses 854 854
Sta., prtg., postage 994 895 99
& office supplies
Office equipment 122 110 12
Typing & clerical 1106 1106
service
Cleaning, mainten- 583 525 58
ance & electric
Insurance 341 227 114
Floral Wreaths & sick 369 369
com.
Other committees 95 95
Life ins. prem. 356 356
Convention expenses 379 379
Contributions 224 224
Annual party 919 919
Bank chgs 16 16
Souvenir journals & 78 78
misc.
TOTAL G. & A. 37709 29549 8160
PER CAPITA EXP. 4610
Less cost of
200 stamps
purchased
12/67 for
1/68 950
3660 3660
TOTAL G. & A. 41369 29549 11820
AND PER CAP.
INTL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
APPENDIX B
LOCAL 640, IATSE
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND PER CAPITA TAXES
(January 1-September 30, 1968)
573
ALLOCATED TO
Total Collective Bargaining Union
and Hiring Hall
Salaries:
Bus. Rep 10500 10500
Walter Lord 3150 2363 787
(Tres.)
Andrew Marglin
(Pres.) 875 657 218
Henry Keiper 675 675
Office secretary 2962 2962
Amounts paid to or 788 788
for officers
Officers expenses 2177 1938 239
Payroll taxes 789 710 79
Welfare & Retire- 1 161 787 374
ment Fund Payments
Telephone & service 2711 2711
Auditing 900 450 450
Office rent 1722 1722
Hall rental & 513 513
meeting expense
Stationery, print- 754 679 75
ing, postage &
office exp.
Office equipment 299 269 30
Cleaning & main- 170 153 17
tenance
Insurance 264 176 88
Floral wreaths & 220 220
sick committee
Life insurance 253 253
premiums
Convention expense 600 600
Contributions 50 50
Testimonial dinners 65 65
Souvenir Journals &
misc 23 23
Annual party 1 103 1103
TOTAL G & A
EXPENSES 32724 26077 6647
Per capita taxes 2640 2640
35364 26077 9287