Intl. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 648

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 66 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Local 648 (Foothill Electrical Corporation) and
Brack Collier, An Individual . Case 9-CB-1585
April 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On November 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Samuel M.
Singer issued his Decision in the above-entitled case,
finding that the Respondent Union had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete the references to "Foothill Electric Corpora-
tion" from paragraphs 1(b) and 2(e) of the Trial Examin-
er's Recommended Order.
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b) of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order:
"Notify the aforementioned Association, in writing,
with a copy to Brack Collier, that the Respondent has
no objection to Collier's employment, in accordance
with the valid provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Respondent Union and the Cin-
cinnati Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Associa-
tion, Hamilton Division, and will not discriminate in
his selection for employment or the employment of
anyother job applicant who is not a member of the
Respondent of any other union."
3. Substitute the attached Notice in place and stead
of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.
NOTICE
To ALL JOB APPLICANTS USING OUR HIRING HALL,
WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 648
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and
orders that the Respondent Union, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 648, Ham-
ilton, Ohio, its officers, agents, and representatives,
' These findings and conclusions are based, in part , upon the Trial
Examiner 's credibility determinations to which the Respondent Union
excepts On the basis of our careful review of the record, we conclude
that the Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions are not contrary to
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence, and we find
no basis for disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
2 We conclude, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent Union, in the operation of its exclusive hiring hall, violated
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by refusing to refer Brack Collier
for employment on December 9, 1968, because he was not a union
member International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft
Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, (Considine Distribut-
ing Co ), 166 NLRB 915, Carpenters Union Local 180, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Golden State
Runway and Engineering Company), 162 NLRB 950 We therefore
find it unnecessary to adopt the Trial Examiner' s further finding that
the Respondent refused to refer Collier for employment to a specific
employer, namely, the Foothill Electrical Corporation We shall modify
the Recommended Order as requested by the Respondent to provide
that future referrals shall be made in accordance with the valid provisions
of the collective-bargaining agreement ,
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to refer any nonunion
member to a job on the same basis as a union
member, as provided in the valid provisions of
our collective-bargaining agreement with the Cincin-
nati Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Asso-
ciation, Hamilton Division.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any
employer to deny employment to any applicant
or employment because he is not a member of
our Union or any other union, in accordance with
the valid provisions of our collective-bargaining
agreement.
WE WILL reimburse Brack Collier for any loss
of earnings suffered by him because of our failure
and refusal to refer him for work.
WE WILL notify the aforementioned Association,
in writing, with a copy to Brack Collier, that we
have no objection to Collier's employment, in
accordance with the valid provisions of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between our Union and
the Cincinnati Chapter, National Electrical Contrac-
tors Association, Hamilton Division, and WE WILL
NOT discriminate in his selection for employment
or the employment of any other job applicant who
is not a member of our Union or any other union.
182 NLRB No. 4
INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 648
Dated By
i
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL
WORKERS , AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 648
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office, Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SAMUEL M. SINGER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
was tried before me at Dayton, Ohio, on May 26 and
August 5, 1969, pursuant to a charge filed on January
13 and complaint issued on March 27, 1969.' The com-
plaint alleged that Respondent, in violation of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(a) of the Act, discriminatorily refused
to refer the Charging Party for employment to Foothill
Electric Corporation and other employers with whom
Local 648 had a collective agreement because the Charg-
ing Party was not a union member.2 All parties appeared
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and
to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were
received from General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record of the case3 and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION; LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At all material times Respondent Local 648 has been
party to a collective agreement with the Association
' On July 8, 1969, I granted General Counsel ' s motion to reopen
the record (which had been closed on May 26, 1969 ) for the purpose
of receiving into evidence a copy of the collective-bargaining contract
between Local 648 and the Cincinnati Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association , Hamilton Division (herein called the Associa-
tion) The July 8 order also provided for a supplemental hearing to
be held on August 5, 1969 ( See infra B, 4 )
Y The complaint , as issued , also covered the charge filed by the
Charging Party (Collier) against another union (International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 82) in Case 9-CB-1586 At
the hearing , I granted Local 82's motion to sever that case from
the instant case (9-CB-1585) on the ground that the two cases involved
separate and autonomous unions with different areas of jurisdiction,
different employers and areas in which the claimed violation occurred,
different incidents and dates of alleged unfair labor practices, and
no claim of concerted action or collusion by the two Unions in the
commission of the violations alleged See also my decision in Case
9-CB-1586, issued this date
3 Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated October 22,
1969
67
(see fn. 1, supra) of which Foothill Electric Corporation
was a member. Foothill is a California corporation,
engaged in the business of electrical construction work
on various projects in several States, including a project
at Middletown, Ohio. During the past representative
calendar year Foothill had a direct outflow into interstate
commerce of goods and services valued in excess of
$50,000. I find that Foothill is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that assertion of jurisdiction here is proper.
Respondent Local 648 is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Respondent's collective agreement with the Associa-
tion provides that Local 648 "shall be the sole and
exclusive source of referrals of applicants for employ-
ment." The Union is required to "select and refer"
applicants on a nondiscriminatory basis from a register
of applicants. The contract sets up four "groups" by
means of which applicants are classified on the basis
of experience, an examination (given by an IBEW local),
residence in the area, and length of employment under
the collective-bargaining agreement. Those meeting
requirements maximally fall into Group I (the top priority
group) and those meeting the least stringent requirements
minimally fall into Group IV (the lowest priority group).4
Charging Party Collier was employed by Foothill Elec-
tric (an Association member) at its Middletown, Ohio,
project in August 1966. He worked as a "white ticket"
or nonunion journeyman wireman until October 1967
when he became a member of Local 1438, an IBEW
affiliate with headquarters in Magna, Utah. On acquiring
his Local 1438 card, Collier voluntarily terminated his
employment at Foothill "to clear through the Hall"
and be referred to Foothill as a union employee.' Collier
credibly testified, without contradiction," that when he
visited Local 648's office (in Hamilton, Ohio), on October
16, 1967, Business Agent McClure asked him to show
his Local 1438 dues receipts. Collier produced them
and McClure wrote out "a referral to Foothill Electric"
slip. McClure then said, "Well, you had better hang
on to it [the Local 1438 card] because it will mean
a mountain of money to you."7 Collier continued to
4 The complaint does not allege that the exclusive referral system
(including the classification system governing the order of dispatch
of applicants for employment) is unlawful
5 Collier testified that he quit at the suggestion of Jim Flick, whom
he described as the Local 648 steward on the Foothill job According
to Collier, Flick promised to obtain immediate clearance through Local
648 Business Agent McClure so that he would "be back into work
the next day and not lose no pay at all " At the hearing I reserved
decision on Respondent's motion to strike this testimony on the ground
that General Counsel failed to establish that Flick was a steward or
agent of Respondent I now grant Respondent's motion and place
no reliance on the indicated testimony
fi Testimony (relating to an event in the pre-Section 10(b), 6-month
period) admitted only as background
' In completing Local 648's "Application for Referral, "Collier listed
his prior experience, including at least 4 years of electrical construction
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work for Foothill until June 28 or 29, 1968, when he
decided to leave Foothill for Houston, Texas.
On July 1, 1968, Collier visited Respondent's office
and asked Business Agent McClure for a letter to assist
him in obtaining a job at Houston. McClure wrote
the following letter of recommendation:
This will introduce Brack Collier of Local Union
1438 I.B.E.W. who has worked as a'Journeyman
Wireman in the jurisdiction of Local Union #648
for the past two and one half [2-1/2] years.
His work has been highly satisfactory as a Jour-
neyman Wireman.
Around August 1, 1968, Collier returned from Texas
and obtained employment in the Dayton, Ohio, area
under the jurisdiction of IBEW Local 82. He was laid
off by Hughes-Bechtol Corporation (in the Dayton area)
on December 6, 1968.
In the meantime, in September 1968, Local 1438 ref-
used to accept Collier's dues payment and canceled
his Local 1438 membership. In a letter of October 5,
1968, Local 1438 Financial Secretary Taylor explained
to Collier that he (Taylor) "was in error" in admitting
Collier to membership "to begin with" since Collier
had not been working in the area under Local 1438's
jurisdiction.
Collier credibly testified that on December 9, 1968
(3 days after his layoff by Hughes-Bechtol Corporation),
he telephoned Local 648 Business Agent McClure, told
him that he was out of a job, and asked if he had
"any openings." When McClure said that he heard
Collier "had difficulty with [his] ticket," Collier agreed
that "that was right." McClure then said that Local
648 did not refer "white ticket men [nonunion applicants]
out of their hall." When Collier asked about Foothill
Electric needing help, McClure replied that "their call
had been filled."
About 2 days later (December 11 or 12), Collier tele-
phoned McClure that Foothill Electric had advised him
that "they did too have a call in for men." McClure
said, "I told you that Foothill's order had been filled."
When Collier asked if he "could just give [him] a
few weeks' work, just until after the first of the year,
then if he wanted [him] to [he] would quit," McClure
replied that "there was nothing he could do." In the
same conversation, Collier asked McClure if he could
work for a contractor friend (Harvey Price) if the latter
called the union hall and asked for Collier by name.
McClure responded that Price "can't choose his men.
If he calls the hall he'll have to take whoever I have
available to send out.""
work While stating (in his application) that he was `willing to take
a qualifying journeyman wireman examination to be conducted by Local
648, he also claimed (contrary to fact) that he had already passed
one given by Local 1438
" The findings in the last two paragraphs concerning the Collier-
McClure conversations of December 9 and II or 12 are based on
the testimony of Collier, who impressed me as an essentially credible
witness In crediting Collier, I have not overlooked (1) his inaccurate
statement in his October 16, 1967 (Local 648) application for referral,
to the effect that he had passed a Local 1438 job qualifying examination
(supra, fn 7), and (2) his failure to specifically mention the December
I i or 12 conversation in his prehearing statement I regard as significant
B. Conclusions
1. It is undisputed that the collective agreement
between Respondent (Local 648 ) and the Association
contains an exclusive hiring hall clause . It is also undis-
puted that under that clause Repondent was under a
legal obligation to refer job applicants to Association
members, including Foothill Electric , on a nondiscrimina-
tory basis, without regard to membership or lack of
membership in the Union . See Local 357, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters [Los Angeles -Seattle Motor
Express] v. N.L.R.B., 365 U. S. 667; Local 269, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Mercer County
Division , Electrical Contractors Association ), 149 NLRB
768, enfd . 357 F.2d 51, 55 (C.A.3); International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 340, AFL-CIO
(Walsh Construction Company), 131 NLRB 260, enfd.
301 F.2d 824 (C.A. 9). The basic issue here is whether
Respondent's December 9 refusal to refer Collier to
Foothill was based on the fact that Collier was not
a member of Respondent or its sister Local 1438. "It
is well established that both the union and the employer
violate the statute if they commit discriminatory acts
against specific employees or applicants for employment
in the operation of a hiring hall agreement or arrangement
which in itself is lawful ." Pan Atlantic Steamship Com-
pany, 132 NLRB 868, 871.
2. The record shows that , before Local 648 Business
Agent McClure first cleared Collier for employment
in October 1967, McClure requested Collier to produce
evidence of union membership . When Collier displayed
his Local 1438 dues receipts , McClure wrote out "a
referral to Foothill Electric," telling Collier that he
"had better hang on" to his membership "because it
will mean a mountain of money to you." Collier remained
a Local 1438 member until September 1968, when Local
Respondent's unexplained failure to call its own agent, McClure, to
contradict or give his version of the incidents to which Collier testified
Cf N L R B v Wallick & Schwalm, 198 F 2d 477, 482 (C A 3),
NLRB v Kalof Pulp & Paper Corp , 290 F 2d 447, 451 (C A
9) (Nor did Respondent call any of the employers involved (Foothill
and Price) to rebut Collier's testimony ) Respondent called- (at the
supplemental hearing) only one witness, its secretary, Phyllis Apgar,
in an effort to impugn Collier's credibility However, I regard her
testimony as vague and unreliable According to Mrs Apgar, in "the
first party of December" 1968 she overheard a "loud" conversation
in McClure's office (adjacent to her own) wherein Collier allegedly
said that "he wasn't going to fill out an application because it wouldn't
do him any good anyway " She admitted that she herself did not
speak to Collier, that Collier did not announce or otherwise identify
himself, that she did not see him enter the office (she allegedly only
saw him leave it), that she only heard the few quoted words, and
that as many as 30 to 35 employees visit the union office in a morning
According to Apgar, it was McClure who "told [her] who it was"
that spoke with him in the office Again I note that McClure did
not take the stand to give his version of the incident On the other
hand, Collier frankly and unequivocally testified that he had not been
to the union office in December-indeed not since McClure had given
him the July I, 1968, letter of recommendation for a job in Texas
(supra), that he never saw Mrs Apgar before the hearing, that his
December 9 and II or 12 conversations with McClure were by telephone,
and that McClure on those times did not request him to fill out any
application No satisfactory explanation has been advanced as to why
Collier, who was unemployed and eager for employment, would refuse
to fill out an application if such step could mean the difference between
working and not working
INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 648 69
1438 canceled his membership because he had not been
working in its territorial jurisdiction. On December 9,
1968, when Collier again sought referral through
Respondent, McClure, noting Collier's "difficulty with
[his] ticket," told Collier that Respondent was not refer-
ring "white ticket men [nonunion applicants] out of
their [hiring] hall." This, then, appears' to be one of
those "rare" cases where there is "direct evidence
of a purpose to violate the statute." N.L.R.B. v. Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, Hoisting and Porta-
ble Local No. 101, [Sub Grade Engineering Co.], 216
F.2d 161•, 164 (C.A. 8), quoting from Hartsell Mills
Co. v. N. L.R.B.,, 11I F. 2d 291, 293 (C. A. 4).
3. Respondent's contention (br. p. 15) that no finding
of discrimination has been established "since the record
contains no evidence that there were in fact any jobs
open for referrals on the particular dates in question"
is rejected. The record shows that on December 9,
when Collier asked Business Agent McClure if there
were "any openings," McClure indicated that he could
not refer him because Respondent did not clear nonunion
applicants and not because jobs were unavailable. Hence,
it was unnecessary to show that jobs were available
on the particular day when Collier requested referral.
See N.L.R.B. v. Local 803, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, [Harbor Ship Maintenance Co.], 218
F.2d 299, 302 (C.A. 3); N.L.R:B. v. Lummus Co.,
210' F.2d 377, 380-381 (C.A. 5).9 Nor is there merit
in Respondent's suggestion (br. pp. 16-18) that the instant
case is comparable to other Board cases 19 where unions
were absolved of violations for refusing to•refer employ-
ees because the job applicants failed to comply with
union rules requiring them to pass qualifying examina-
tions. The fact is that here Respondent's refusal to
'refer Collier was not predicated on that ground. "It
is the `true purpose' or 'real motive' in hiring or firing
that constitutes the test" (Local 357, Teamsters v. Local
N.L.R.B. [Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express], 365 U.S.
667, 675) and, so long as a reason for referral or discharge
is one proscribed by the Act, it is immaterial that other
valid reasons for the action may also be present.
N.L.R.B. v. Local Union. No. 38, United Association
of Journeymen, [D. I. Chadbourne, Inc.], 388 F.2d 679,
680 (C.A. 6). Furthermore, McClure's, July 1, 1968,
letter recommending Collier for employment in an area
outside of Respondent's jurisdiction (Texas) demon-
strates that McClure had regarded Collier as a "highly
9 Cases relied on by Respondent (br p 15) are distinguishable
Thus, in Pan Atlantic Steamship Company, 132 NLRB 868, all applicants
were referred in a nondiscriminatory manner, irrespective of union
membership or nonmembership In Kearney Convention Center, Inc ,
169 NLRB 264, it was found that the employer's refusal to hire a
striker was predicated on lack of work and not a discriminatory rule
against hiring strikers, the Board expressly distinguished the situation
from Shawnee Industries, Inc , 140 NLRB .1451, 1453, where it "found
that the absence of vacancies did not absolve the Employer from
violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act where the record clearly showed
that the employer refused to consider certain job applicants because
the individuals involved were known union adherents "
" International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos
Workers (Catalytic Construction Co ), 164 NLRB 916, Local 367, IBEW
(National Electrical Contractors Assn ), 134 NLRB 132, 135
satisfactory . . . Journeyman Wireman" while he was
a union member.
Under all the circumstances , I find and conclude
that it was Collier' s lack of union membership-not
job unavailability or failure to qualify for jobs-that
prompted and was the true reason for Respondent's
refusal to refer Collier for employment . Respondent's
conduct thereby constituted a clear violation of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act
4. Respondent in its brief (pp. 11-14) renews a proce-
dural contention already disposed of at the hearing.
As noted supra, fn. 1, on July 8, 1969, I issued an
order granting, General Counsel's motion to reopen the
record to receive evidence and reopened the proceeding
for a supplemental hearing. Respondent contends that
"General Counsel's request for a supplemental hearing
was improper."
As Respondent states, the hearing was closed on
May 26, 1969, after counsel for General Counsel complet-
ed his case. Respondent called no witnesses and adduced
no documentary evidence, resting its case after I had
denied its motion to dismiss for "failure of proof on
behalf of the Charging Party." On June 6, 1969, General
Counsel moved to reopen the record for the purpose
of introducing a copy of the collective agreement
between Respondent and the Association, alleging that
the document was pertinent to the issues and through
inadvertence had not previously been offered. After
due consideration, I granted the application, but, to
avoid the possibility of prejudice to Respondent,
reopened the proceeding for a supplemental hearing,
held on August 5, 1969 ', for the purpose of affording
Respondent opportunity to present such evidence and
contentions as it considered necessary and appropriate.
While not unmindful of the inconvenience and possible
expense of a'reopened hearing, I concluded that under
all the circumstances this procedure 'was in promotion
of the policies of the Act and. in the public interest.
As explained in the July 8, 1969, order:
While agreeing with Respondent's contention that
Counsel for General Counsel was neglectful in fail-
ing to adduce the evidence in question (a collective-
bargaining agreement) during the hearing, I am
nevertheless of the view that under all the circum-
stances the granting of General Counsel's motion
is in promotion of the policies of the Act and
in the public interest. Parties 'should be mindful
that this is not a private lawsuit, but a public
proceeding to vindicate public rights. The public
interest must thus be balanced against any unconve-
nience and possible expense that Respondent may
suffer from a reopened hearing. Respondent is a
purported signatory to the proffered collective
agreement, the agreement was expressly referred
to in the complaint, and it is clearly material to
the issues raised. To deny admission into evidence
of this. document on the ground of inadvertence
of counsel would exalt technicality over substance.
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
So technical and narrow a view would be inconsis-
tent with the public interest here."
Cf. National Licorice Co.,v. N.L.R.B., 309 U.S. 350,
361-364; Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated
Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 265-269; see also Central
Freight Lines, Inc., 133 NLRB 393, 394, In. 1. In any
event, Respondent has shown no legal prejudice; it
has been afforded full opportunity at the supplemental
hearing to adduce evidence and to meet General Coun-
sel's case.
I conclude that Respondent's refusal to refer Collier
to Foothill Electric Corporation on December 9, 1968,
was violative of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(a) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily refusing to refer the Charging
Party (Brack Collier) for employment on December 9,
1968, to Foothill Electric Corporation (a member of
the Association with whom Respondent has an exclusive
referral agreement) because Collier was not a union
member, Respondent has caused employer discrimina-
tion against an employee in violation of Section 8(a)
(3) of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) and 1(A) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall further recommend that Respondent notify
Foothill Electric, the Association, and Brack Collier,
in writing, that it will not discriminate against Collier
or any other job applicant in selecting or referring them
for employment through its hiring hall procedures,
because of nonunion membership. I shall also recom-
mend that Respondent make Brack Collier whole for
any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him. The amount of backpay shall be comput-
ed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest as
prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
Since the unlawful conduct of Respondent indicates
a purpose to limit the lawful rights of employees, and
the danger of its continued and further commission
is reasonably foreseeable, I shall also recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from causing or attempting
to cause any employer to deny employment in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and
" By order dated August 7, 1969, the Board denied Respondent's
request for special permission to appeal from the July 8 order
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make
the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local 648, its,officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall: ,
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Denying employment or referral to employment
to any employee or potential employee because he is
not a member of any union.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Foothill Electric
Corporation, the Cincinnati Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association, Hamilton Division, or any of
its members, to deny employment, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Brack Collier for any loss of pay
he may have suffered because of the discrimination
against him, in the manner set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Foothill Electric Corporation, as well as
the aforementioned Association, in writing, with a copy
to Brack Collier, that Respondent has no objection
to Collier's employment and will not discriminate in
his selection for employment or the employment of
any other job applicant who is not a member of Respond-
ent or any other union.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all records pertaining to employment through its hiring
halls and all records relevant and necessary to compli-
ance with above paragraph (a).
(d) Post at its business office, hiring halls, and meeting
places copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by Respondent's official representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
aintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,it
, conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
INTL . BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 648
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(e) Mail signed copies of the attached notice to Foot-
hill Electric Corporation and the aforementioned Associ-
ation for posting, it or they being willing, at its or
their business office, including (if applicable) the Middle-
town, Ohio, jobsite, and elsewhere within the geograph-
ical area of Respondent's jurisdiction or operations
71
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
13 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional
Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "