Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc., Local 38

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1627 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC., LOCAL 38 1627
supervision separate from the other employees in the plant; they per-
formed only a minimal amount of nonlithographic work; and there was
only sporadic interchange between lithographic and other employees.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the facts that lithographic
employees possess lithographic skills, are engaged predominantly in
work requiring such skills, are separately supervised and work in a
separate location, and that there is virtually no interchange between
lithographic and other employees, we would direct a severance election
among the lithographic employees.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America , Local No. 38 and Elmer
Davidson, its Business Agent [Al Johnson Construction Co.]
and Harold L. Wilkins. Case No. 19-CB-922. May 15. 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 23,1963, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. There-
after, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and o, support-
ing brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Decision, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders
that Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
1 we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent Davidson denied Wilkins' referral
to the Johnson and Dagerstrom jobs because he considered Wilkins' opposition to him and
to Donovan in the union election as an affront to their positions and prestige . See Local
Union No. 18 , International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, etc. ( Earl D.
Creager, Inc.), 141 NLRB 512. We believe that the violations of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2 ) which were thereby committed can be fully remedied as proposed by the Trial
Examiner without adopting his additional recommendation that the Respondents modify
their hiring hall procedures so as to conform exactly with the provisions of the Uniou-A( C
contract. The Respondents may not refuse to refer applicants for employment for reasons
related to their union or concerted activities, but they may continue to use nondiscrimina-
tory criteria for referral in addition to date of registration.
146 NLRB No. 189.
1628 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS - BOARD
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 38, its officers,
agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, and Respondent Elmer
Davidson, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Rec-
onunended Order, as modified below :
Paragraph 1(a) is deleted and paragraph 1(b) and (c) are retium-
beredasl(a) and (b).
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On a charge duly filed on April 16 , 1963, by Harold L. Wilkins, an individual, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, the latter herein called
the Board , by the Regional Director of the Nineteenth Region of the Board, issued
a complaint dated June 6, 1963, alleging in substance that International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 38 and
Elmer Davidson , its business agent, herein called the Respondent Union and/or
Respondent Davidson, failed and refused to refer Wilkins : to certain named employers,
in violation of the terms of hiring hall provisions contained in its contract with the
said employers , for the reason that he had engaged in certain specified protected
concerted and union activities . On the complaint , due notice , and the Respondents'
duly filed answer , a hearing , participated in by all parties , was held before Trial
Examiner William E . Spencer at Seattle, Washington , on July 9 and 10, 1963.
Upon consideration of the entire record in the case, the briefs filed with me by the
General Counsel and the Respondents , respectively , and my observation of .the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Al Johnson Construction Co., a Delaware corporation , herein called Johnson, is
a building , heavy, and highway construction contractor , with its main office at Min-
neapolis, Minnesota . At times material herein it has been engaged as general con-
tractor for construction of a dam and hydroelectric power plant for Public Utility
District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington , in the Sultan Basin , near Sultan,
Washington , and in the course of its last fiscal or calendar year it has purchased
goods and services for use at this project directly or indirectly from outside Wash-
ington of a value exceeding $50,000. At all times material herein it has been a
member of the Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc., herein AGC, a multiemployer group whose members annually pur-
chase directly from outside the State of Washington goods valued in excess of
$1,000,000.
N. A. Dagerstrom Construction Co., a Washington corporation , herein called
Dagerstrom , is engaged in building , heavy, and highway construction . Among other
projects, at times material herein it engaged in a railway track relocation project
for the Great Northern Railway near Goldbar, Washington, at •a contract value in
.excess of $700 ,000. It is, and at all times material herein has been , a member of
AGC.
Johnson , Dagerstrom , and AGC are, and at all times material herein have been,
employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
If. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act, and Respondent Davidson is its agent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Material facts
The Respondent Union, along with numerous other Teamster locals, is signatory
to a labor agreement with various chapters of the Associated General Contractors
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., LOCAL 38 162.9
of America, Inc., herein AGC. This agreement provides, inter alia, for the exclu-
sive hire of teamsters through the Union. Credible testimony establishes that the
Respondent has not chosen strictly to enforce this portion of the agreement. It
does operate a hiring hall pursuant to the AGC contract, it does not make referrals,
but members and nonmembers on occasion obtain their jobs without referrals.
Contractors signatory to the agreement may, and on occasion do, hire without union
clearance. Nevertheless, the hiring hall provisions of the contract have, never been
formally amended or modified and it is clear from testimony elicited from certain
contractor signatories that these contractors consider themselves bound by the hiring
hall provisions. In short, the Respondent has the right, under contract, to operate
an exclusive hiring hall and to bind employer signatories to the provisions of the
contract.
The single issue here, as stated in the General Counsel's brief, is whether the
Respondents caused Johnson, Dagerstrom, or both, to discriminate against Harold
L. Wilkins, the Charging Party, by their failure and refusal to refer Wilkins for
employement to Johnson on March 27, 1963, and to Dagerstrom on April 9 and 11,
1963. The General Counsel contends that the Respondents denied Wilkins such
referrals because he had engaged in intraunion political activities against Elmer
Davidson, Respondent's business agent , and Frank Donovan, Respondent's secretary-
treasurer. Obviously with this posture of the issue, and on this point, it makes little
difference whether or not Respondent actually takes full advantage of its hiring hall
privileges under the contract. Respondent did make referrals to the jobs in question
and, although it was on notice that Wilkins was available for these assignments, did
refer persons other than Wilkins to these jobs. This much is virtually undisputed.
If Respondents' failure or refusal to refer Wilkins was due to his protected con-
certed or union activity, a violation of the Act is established.
Wilkins has been an off-and-on member of Respondent Union for years, and a
member at all times material herein. His last period of employment prior to the
filing of the charge which instituted this proceeding, was with the Morrison-Knudsen
company. He was dispatched by the Respondent to this job, though on numerous
previous occasions he had obtained work with various contractors without clear-
ance through the Respondent's hiring hall. In August, while at work on the Mor-
rison-Knudsen job, he became ill of a heart condition, and it was not until February
1963 that his doctor released him to return to work. The said release, according to
Wilkins, contained certain restrictions on Wilkins' future employment, relating to
such matters as heavy lifting and climbing up and down on loaded trucks. Respond-
ent's Donovan testified that he was informed of no such restrictions. I credit him.
During the some 26 weeks when he was unavailable for employment, Wilkins was the
recipient of health and welfare benefits pursuant to the Respondent's health and wel-
fare plan: Twenty-six weeks was the maximum period for the running of such
benefits. Its expiration appears to have coincided with Wilkins' release to return
to work.
On or about February 12, the date on which he was released to return to work,
Wilkins requested one of Respondent 's clerks to -place him on the availability
list; he also informed Elmer Davidson, Respondent's business agent, of his avail-
ability for work referrals. He received assurances that his name would be placed
on the, 'availability lists. A good deal of testimony was offered on Respondent's
methods in maintaining an availability list, but inasmuch as there is no question
that on and after February 12 the Respondents were fully advised of Wilkins' avail-
ability for work referrals, no further reference to the matter at this point is required.
During the period when he was unavailable for job referrals, Wilkins spent a good
deal of time in Respondent's offices. Donovan testified:
Approximately from August 13 to February 13, Mr. Wilkins was in our office
from two to five times a day spending fifteen to twenty minutes on each visit.
During that particular time he did quite a deal of interference with our office
staff. I became secretary on October 1; the latter part of October I asked Mr.
Wilkins if he would not bother the office staff as often as he has been doing,
interrupting, listening to telephone calls, making remarks, asking them if the
police had been up by the front of the labor temple checking his car, and that
continued on at least through the month of November, and I asked him several
times-not to interfere with the office staff.
Also during the period of his unavailability for job referrals, in the latter part
of 1962, Wilkins did quite a bit of traveling about in Respondent's jurisdictional area
"more or less to see if there was any jobs going on, any prospective jobs in sight,
who had them and when the approximate dates would start." On one of these
trips he visited the Sultan Basin Dam job, herein called the Sultan project, and
observed that some of the employees on the job were working Saturdays and Sun-
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
days. He inquired about job openings on the project and, according 'to him , learned
that the employees were not drawing time-and -a-half pay for , Saturday and Sunday.
work as stipulated under the AGC contract . He, also learned that they - did not
belong to the Respondent local but to another Teamsters local. Nevertheless, be-
cause the project apparently was under the Respondent 's jurisdiction , he complained
to Davidson about the matter , suggesting that something ought to be done about
the apparent breach of contract. According to him, Davidson replied, "Well, there
is nothing we can do about it, they are [Local] 174 drivers," and that to attempt
to do anything about it "would just probably start some trouble." This response
did not satisfy Wilkins. He broached the matter to Donovan , and getting no more
favorable response from him than he had from Davidson, he-according to his
testimony-brought up the matter in five or six union meetings.
According to Wilkins, primarily because of his dissatisfaction with the response
he got from Donovan and Davidson on the Sultan project matter, he was active in
attempting to replace them in their official posts. He testified: "I felt if they were
not going to do anything about backing up an agreement that the drivers had with
the employers, I felt it was time they should be replaced and somebody put in to
office that would take action on it." Accordingly, at -a nomination meeting in
December 1962, he nominated one Charles Higgins for secretary-treasurer to replace
Donovan , and in the election which followed was active in Higgins ' behalf and also
actively supported one Snyder to replace Davidson as business agent . Both David-
son and Donovan were aware of his opposition to their retention of their respective
posts with the Respondent. Both were reelected by large majorities . Both the
election and the campaign which preceded it occurred while Wilkins was still un-
available for job referrals.
Coming now to the crucial matter of the referrals in question , the General Counsel'
contends , as aforestated , that Wilkins was discriminated against because he received
none of the three job referrals made by the Respondents during the period between
February 12, when Wilkins' availability for referral was made, known to the Re-
spondents, and April 16, the date on which Wilkins filed the charge initiating these'
proceedings. These referrals were made March 27 and April 9 and 11, respectively.
f assume that the General Counsel does not contend that, lacking discrimination,.
Wilkins would have received all three of the referrals in question. I further assume
that had Wilkins received the referral of March 27, there would be no-question raised
about subsequent referrals. The referral of March 27 was offered to one Lwayne
Bowles, and upon his refusal to one Jack Frost , and upon Frost 's unavailability to one
other, and finally to one George Legg who accepted it.
In the forenoon of March 27, Davidson was informed by Johnson that it needed
a driver. Davidson testified that he was informed that the driver was needed "as
soon as possible ." Wayne Brooks, Johnson 's office manager who -made the call,
did not recall stating that the driver was needed "as soon as possible ," but testified
hee stated that the driver was needed for the first shift next day. Upon receiving the
call, according to Davidson, he made two telephone calls to persons who had worked.
on the Sultan project previously , and receiving no answer , and observing no one
present in the union hall who would be available for dispatch , he drove to the
home of Lwayne Bowles, who also had worked on the Sultan project. Questioned,
"Was there anything else figured in your selection of Lwayne Bowles other than the.
fact he had worked out there previously," Davidson responded, "No, sir. ' He
testified he did not recall whether Bowles had worked for the prime contractor on
the project , Johnson , or one of Johnson's subcontractors but later testified that to
his knowledge Bowles had previously been employed by Johnson . It just happened
that Wilkins was present at Bowles' home at the time Davidson came to see Bowles
about•the Johnson referral. His car, a red Chevrolet, was parked outside Bowles'
home and Davidson parked a few feet away from it. Wilkins, a relative of Bowles'
wife, was inside the house during the entire time that Bowles was conversing with
Davidson at the front door . Bowles declined the assignment whereupon Davidson
inquired of him concerning the availability of Jack Frost, Bowles' relative. Bowles
thought Frost might he available. Bowles made no mention of Wilkins' availability,
and Wilkins, though he was aware of Davidson's presence, did not make his presence
known to Davidson. The General Counsel contends that Davidson must have
noticed and recognized Wilkins' car which had been parked many times in front-
of Respondent's offices. This Davidson denied. I do not see that it matters fur-
ther than its impact on credibility resolutions . Respondent Davidson then, knew that
Wilkins was available, and an active candidate, for a job referral.
After leaving Bowles' house, Davidson returned to the union offices and there.
encountered one Bob Hough. He advised Hough of the job opening and Hough
declined the referral. Davidson then telephoned Jack Frost and was informed
that Frost, being without transportation at the time , was not immediately available..
INT'L -BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,: ETC., LOCAL 38 . 1631
According to Davidson, he. next looked about the union hall .and no drivers were
present,. but shortly thereafter one George Legg, who, according to Davidson, had
worked for.this company previously, came into the hall, was advised of the request,
and accepted the referral. Legg thereafter reported on the job. Upon learning
that Legg had been assigned to the Sultan job, Wilkins waited for Davidson at. the
union hall and upon seeing him asked him why he, Wilkins, had not been dispatche4
to the job. Davidson replied, "Would you have gone if I had offered it to you?"
Wilkins said that was no answer to his question, that he, Wilkins, wanted to know,
why he was not offered the job. According to Wilkins, Davidson finally replied,
"You have never worked up there for one reason," to which Wilkins countered,
'.'Well, some of the fellows you have contacted never worked for Johnson Con-.
struction either at the same job," though, Wilkins admitted, they may have worked
for some Johnson subcontractor. Davidson then referred Wilkins to Donovan..
On being asked by the Trial Examiner whether he would have accepted the referral
had it been offered him, Wilkins testified, "I was available for work and therefore.
I figured had the job been offered to me, I would have taken it." .
At a later date, Wilkins learned of a construction job about to be started by
Dagerstrom, made some contacts on the job in an effort to learn when there would
be work available, was advised that Dagerstrom would hire through the Union,.
and asked Davidson if he knew when Dagerstrom would be making requests for.
drivers. Davidson replied that he did not know the date but it should be soon.
The next information Davidson had on this job was that one Lukenbill had been
dispatched to the job. Upon receiving this information Wilkins went to the union
hall to see Davidson, found him out, and later, according to him, saw Davidson in
a nearby cafe. He spoke to Davidson in the cafe, asked him who had been dis-
patched on the Dagerstrom project, and Davidson replied that Lukenbill had been
dispatched and that he was going to dispatch Bowles to this same job the next day.
Wilkins asked why these two men were being dispatched ahead of him, and David-
son replied, "that is just because I am dispatching them, that is why." The follow-
ing day Wilkins returned to the union hall, and saw Davidson in the latter's office.
He insisted on being given a reason why Lukenbill and Bowles had been dispatched
ahead of him to the Dagerstrom job. According to Wilkins, Davidson replied, "Well,
they worked up there before and they are a couple of nice guys and you tried to',
cut my throat before the election, so there you are. I am through arguing with,
you." Davidson did not recall Wilkins having approached him in the cafe or of hav-._
ing a conversation in the cafe with Wilkins as Wilkins testified, and vigorously denied-
having made any reference to Wilkins' election activities.
B. Concluding findings
That Wilkins was deliberately passed over in.the Johnson referral can hardly be:
doubted. Davidson's own testimony establishes that he attempted to make contact
with six drivers- and actually spoke to four, in an effort to find someone available.:
for the referral. None of the six was Wilkins. According to Donovan, both preced
ing and following his availability for job referrals, Wilkins literally haunted the union
offices to a degree that he made a nuisance of himself. His telephone number was
also on file at the union hall. Whether or not Davidson recognized Wilkins' red
Chevrolet at the time he visited Bowles' home, I have no doubt that he could have,
established contact with Wilkins with reference to the Johnson job had he desired to,
do so, and I.•further find that there was no such rush. in making .the assignment than
he was reasonably precluded by the time element from making the contact. The situa-
tion is' little different with respect-to the Dagerstrom project. Before he had made,
any referrals on this job Davidson had 'been fully advised by Wilkins of the latter's'
interest in obtaining a referral. Why was Wilkins deliberately passed' over in the
making of these several referrals?
The AGC contract, from which' Respondent Union derives its right to operate an.
exclusive hiring hall, requires in its , article VI, section 5(b): "When •a registrant is,
referred for employment and is actually employed on a job for more than seven (7)
days, such registrant'•s name shall be removed from the list. When his employment.
terminates, he shall be .registered at the bottom of the appropriate group list on which.
he is entitled to be registered. If a registrant, upon being referred for employment in
regular order, refuses to accept the employment, such registrant's name shall be placed
at the bottom of the group list on which he is registered." Had these referral pro-
visions of the contract been followed, Legg, Bowles, and Frost would have been below.
Wilkins on the availability lists, and probably Lukenbill also. Apparently, the.
Respondents contend that certain of these men had worked on jobs without union.
referral, and would not have been removed from Respondents' availability lists.
744-670-65-vol. 146-104
1632 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during such periods inasmuch as the Respondent lacked knowledge of their em-
ployment . Respondent Union further contends that just as it did not insist on ex-
clusive hiring hall privileges to which it was entitled under the contract, it also did
not strictly follow the terms of the contract with respect to referrals, basing referrals
on such factors as length of unemployment, size of the individual's family, whether
the individual lives close to the jobsite, whether he has worked on the same job
before, the type of equipment to be handled' and any. physical, restrictions of the
individual. It seeks to justify its action- in:passing over -Wilkins: by. reference -to•such
factors. Leaving aside for the moment whether it could lawfully rely on such factors,
not mentioned in the AGC contract, in making such job referrals as. it did make; I
found the testimony far from persuasive that it was reliance on such factors that
caused it to deny Wilkins referrals to either the Johnson or the Dagerstrom jobs.
Thus, Davidson testified that one factor in his choice of Bowles for referral to the
Dagerstrom project was that Bowles lived in the vicinity of the job or was moving
there, whereas Bowles testified that he decided to move to the jobsite after he got the
job referral. I also found Davidson's denial of the conversation , between,himself,and
Wilkins which occurred in a cafe near the union offices, unconvincing. Finally, while
Davidson's denial of the statement attributed to him by Wilkins to the effect that he
had denied Wilkins referrals because of the latter's political activities against him,
Davidson, was vigorous and unequivocal, this affords the only logical and convincing
explanation that I can find in this record for Respondents' course of deliberate refusals
to refer Wilkins to a job. Of course, it might be that the Respondents , with reason,
regarded Wilkins as opinionated and a busybody; but except for the additional affront
of his political opposition to the retention in office of both Donovan and Davidson,
I think he would not have been discriminated against in the matter of job referrals,
as he undoubtedly was.
In reaching this conclusion, I have not ignored the undisputed testimony of Re-
spondent Union's officers that between November 1, 1962, and April 9, 1963, there
were only 14 individuals dispatched by the Respondent. in all of its 27 divisions; that
less than 50 percent of the members in the :heavy construction division, Wilkins'
classification, worked after. November 1962, and that 'those who were unemployed
kept the Respondent advised of their availability; and the undisputed testimony of
7 construction workers that they did not work in heavy construction work during
January, February, or March, 1963, and reported their unemployment and avail-
ability for referral to Respondent. As a matter of fact it is obvious that during
the winter season opportunities for work in the heavy construction division are
severely limited by weather conditions. None of this explains why Wilkins, who had
been out of work for the better part of a year when he registered his availability on or
about February 12, was passed over for the Johnson referral while Davidson, by his
own testimony, appears to have been rather desperately interviewing one and all,
except Wilkins, who might be available to take this work assignment. It is for the
several reasons expressed above that I am unable to accept the testimony of Re-
spondents' witnesses with respect to their action in denying Wilkins the Johnson
and Dagerstrom referrals, and find that the Respondents denied him such referrals
because of his protected union and concerted activities, thereby violating Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents and each of them as set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employers described in
section 1 , above , have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
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 Respondents and each of them have engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recom-
mend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to remedy the unfair labor practices and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents failed and refused to refer Wilkins to the Johnson
and Dagerstrom jobs, because of his union and concerted activities, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondents make Wilkins whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered because of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to that which he would have earned on the said projects, absent the
discrimination practiced against him, less his net earnings, if any, during said
period. Loss of pay shall be computed upon a quarterly basis in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Backpay shall
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., LOCAL 38 1633
include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed
in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It is further
recommended that, the Respondents, upon his. request, restore his name to the Re-
spondent Union's availability list, pursuant to and according to the terms of Re-
spondent Union's contract with AGC. It will also be recommended that in all
matters of job -referrals through -Respondent. Union's hiring hall, Respondents follow
and adhere to the'-provisions -of Respondent Union's contract with AGC relating
to this matter. Only in this 'way-:can applicants for referral through Respondent
Union's hiring hall be protected against arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory ac-
tion by the Respondents, and the policies of -the Act effectuated.'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Johnson, Dagerstrom, and AGC are, each of them, employers within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
.2.. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5)'of the Act,'and Respondent Davidson its agent.
3. By failing and refusing to refer Harold L. Wilkins for employment by John-
son and/or Dagerstrom pursuant to the hiring ball provisions of Respondent Union's
contract with AGC, because of his concerted and union activities, the Respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
snerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is
recommended that the Respondent Union, its officers, agents, representatives, suc-
c2ssors, and assigns, and Respondent Davidson,' shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Operating a hiring hall under the authority of Respondent Union's contract
with AGC in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the said agreement.
(b) Failing and/or refusing, in the administration of the hiring hall provisions of
the Union's contract with AGC, to refer any individual, or individuals, for em-
ployment because of his, or their, concerted or union activities, or in any like or
related manner restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of -the Act.
. (c) Causing or attempting to cause Johnson, Dagerstrom, AGC, or any AGC
member, to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, by failing and/or refusing to dispatch any individual, or individuals, for em-
ployment by the aforesaid employers pursuant to the hiring hall provisions of the
Union's AGC contract, because of his or their union activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
(a) On request, register Harold L. Wilkinson the Union's availability or out-of-
work lists' pursuant to the hiring' hall ipidvisions of Respondent Union's contract
with AGC. .
.. (b) Make- whole Harold L. Wilkins' for any loss of pay he may have suffered
because of Respondent's discriminatory failure and refusal to refer him for employ-
ment pursuant to the provisions of Respondent Union's contract with AGC, in the
manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its hiring hall, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Nineteenth
Region, Seattle, Washington, shall,. after being duly signed by Respondents or their
1 Somewhat analogous in principle Is the provision Congress inserted in the Administra-
tive Procedure Act that Trial Examiners "shall be assigned to cases in rotation so far as
practicable," a provision designed to prevent the use of case assignments by persons vested
with administrative authority for purposes of reward or reprisal, self-advancement, or in
any arbitrary or capricious manner.
2 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives or agents , be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to applicants for register on the out -of-work list are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region , in writing , within
20 days from the date of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.3
IIn the event that this Recommended Order be 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 Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL APPLICANTS FOR REGISTRATION ON INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL.
No. 38's OUT-OF-WORK LIST
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela
-tions Act,we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT by failing or refusing to make job referrals from our avail-
ability or out-of-work list in a nondiscriminatory manner , or in any like or
related manner, restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT by failing or refusing to dispatch employees on our out-of-
work list in a nondiscriminatory manner, or in any like or related manner,,
cause, or attempt to cause, members of Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc., Mountain Pacific Chapter , to discriminate against employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make whole Harold L. Wilkins for any loss of pay he may have
suffered from having been refused dispatch in a nondiscriminatory manner from
our out-of-work list.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL No. 38,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
ELMER DAVIDSON,
Agent.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate , directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327
Logan Building , Seattle , Washington , Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, Extension
553, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions..
M & B Headwear Co., Inc. and United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 5-CA-2.11,95
and 5-CA-.560. May 15,1961p
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 19,1964, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued
his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent
146 NLRB No. 188.