Iron Workers Local 111 (Steel Builders)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 742 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

742 IRON WORKERS LOCAL I I I (STEEL BUILDERS)
International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, Local
No. 111 (Northern States Steel Builders, Inc.)
and David Pappas. Case 33-CB-1774
6 March 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
Upon a charge filed on 26 January 1982 by
David Pappas, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on 23
February 1982 and amended on 11 June 1982
against Iron Workers, the Respondent, alleging that
it has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. The Respondent filed
answers to the complaint and amended complaint
denying the commission of the unfair labor prac-
tices and requesting that the complaint be dis-
missed.
On 5 August 1982 Pappas, the Respondent, and
the General Counsel filed with the Board a stipula-
tion of facts and a motion to transfer this proceed-
ing directly to the Board. All parties to the stipula-
tion waived the usual proceedings before an admin-
istrative law judge, agreed that the charges, com-
plaint, and answers, in addition to the stipulation of
facts would constitute the entire record herein, and
requested the Board to make findings of fact and
conclusions of law and to issue the appropriate De-
cision and Order. On 3 December 1982 the Board
issued an Order which transferred the proceeding
to the Board, approved the stipulation of facts, and
set a date for filing of briefs. Thereafter, the parties
filed briefs.
The Board has considered the entire record as
stipulated by the parties and the briefs and makes
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, Northern States Steel Builders,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation with its office and
principal place of business in Duluth, Minnesota, is
engaged in the construction of industrial and com-
mercial facilities including a construction project in
Muscatine, Iowa, which is the only site involved in
this proceeding. During the past 12 months the
Employer purchased and shipped to Muscatine
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside of Minnesota. The Em-
ployer admits and we find that it is and has been at
all times material herein an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that the Union
is and has been at all times material herein a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
The question presented is whether the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) when it re-
fused to accept travel service dues from David
Pappas and other travelers (members of other
locals), threatened to bring internal union charges
against any traveler who worked for the Employer
without a valid travel service dues receipt, repeat-
edly requested the Employer to lay off the travel-
ers and hire its members, requested that the travel-
ers give up their jobs in favor of the Respondent's
unemployed members, and coerced the travelers
into withholding their labor from the Employer.
B. The Facts
The stipulated facts show that the Iowa-Illinois
Gas and Electric Company (Owner) and the Em-
ployer along with other contractors are involved in
the construction of the Louisa Generating Station
in Muscatine, Iowa. By virtue of its collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Quad-City Builders As-
sociation, Inc. of Rock Island, Illinois, affiliates of
the Construction Employers Council of M.B.I.,
Inc., an affiliate of the Association of General Con-
tractors, the Respondent has exclusive territorial
jurisdiction over the ironwork being performed in
Muscatine and other parts of Iowa and Illinois. The
Respondent along with other unions is signatory to
a project agreement between the Employer and
others which contains a union recognition clause
and grants to the Respondent exclusive employee
referral rights-' The Respondent operates its refer-
ral service from its office located in Rock Island,
Illinois. In November 1980 Pappas, an ironworker
from Davenport, Iowa, and a member of a sister
local, was referred by the Respondent for a job
with the Employer. During this same month, the
Respondent referred 16 other travelers and 3 of its
own members for jobs with the Employer so that
by January 1982 there were 20 employees who
constituted the Employer's entire ironworker work
force.
I Art 4, Referral of employees states in part "(3) In the event the re-
ferral facilities maintained by the Union are unable to fill the requisition
of the Employer for employees within a forty-eight (48) hour period after
such requisition is made by the Employer the Employer may employ
applicants from any source directly at the jobsite "
274 NLRB No. 110
]RON WORKERS LOCAL 111 (STEEL BUILDERS)
In accordance with the Respondent's Interna-
tional constitution,2 Pappas and the other travelers,
in order to be referred and keep their jobs, were
required by the constitution to pay the Respondent
$2.50 as travel service dues and show their current
monthly home local union dues receipts. This pro-
cedure was followed in some form on a weekly
basis while the travelers were employed by the
Employer. From November 1980 until the fall of
1981, either the Respondent's business agent Leroy
Russell or Business Manager William Weaver or
union steward Jim Smith would collect the travel
service dues from the travelers and check their
home local monthly dues receipts, previous week's
travel service dues receipts, and union cards either
at the Employer's jobsite or the union office. The
Respondent allowed travelers to pay travel service
2 Art XXI, sec 35, states in part
Travel Service Dues
Members of one Local Union shall not seek employment, be em-
ployed, or remain at work at the trade within the territorial jurisdic-
tion of another Local Union without the consent of the other Local
Union, which consent may be evidenced by its acceptance of the
clearance card presented to it by the member involved , as provided
in the Constitution or by the issuance of the service dues receipt
hereinafter described If the member involved does not present a
clearance card to such other Local Union, or the Local Union to
which the clearance card is presented fails to act thereon or the local
union to which the clearance card is presented acts thereon and re-
fuses to transfer such member , then the Business Agent or other au-
thorized officer of such other Local Union, in such cases, shall issue
a service dues receipt (described herein ) Then the member involved
shall be entitled to receive and required to secure successively,
during the period within which said consent be granted and the
member's work continues , such number of weekly service dues re-
ceipts as shall be issued to the member by the said Business Repre-
sentative under the regulations established by the General Executive
Board Such service dues receipts shall , for the period issued, allow
the holder thereof to seek , accept , and hold employment within the
territorial jurisdiction of such other Local Union out of which said
service dues receipts shall be issued and in accordance with the pro-
cedures of employment provided for in the bargaining agreement in
effect in the territorial jurisdiction of such other Local Union, but
subject always to such regulations as shall be imposed thereon by the
General Executive Board Payment of travel service dues is an
obligation arising as an incident of membership in the International
Union Failure of a traveling member to comply with this require-
ment shall subject that member to an appropriate penalty as provid-
ed by the International Constitution Failure of a traveling member
to pay travel service dues shall not be used as a basis for any action
adversely affecting employment rights, except in accordance with
the terms of a valid union security agreement Enforcement of the
collection of travel service dues shall be wholly a matter of internal
Union discipline
Prior Payments of Current Dues Required
Sec 36 The consent referred to in this Article shall not be grant-
ed by the said other Local Union or its Business Agent, nor shall
travel service dues be collected from or service dues receipts be
issued to any said members who shall not , at the time when request-
ing a service dues receipt , have had their current monthly dues paid
into the Local Union to which the members belong, evidenced by
the presentation of current monthly dues receipt Upon the issuance
to the member of the said service dues receipt , the same should be
carried with the member 's membership card and current monthly
dues receipt and shall always be available for inspection and certifi-
cation as to their authenticity
743
dues for up to 1 month in advance. However, be-
ginning in the fall of 1981, the Respondent allowed
only 1 week at a time to be paid, but continued to
allow the travelers to pay dues for up to three
other travelers without requiring home local dues
receipts or union cards. Travelers still were re-
quired to show their previous week's travel service
dues receipts. On occasion Weaver would accept
calls from a traveler's home local verifying that his
monthly dues were paid and in a few instances of
financial hardship, Weaver waived the requirement
that home local union dues had to be current
before he would accept travel service dues.
As of 1 January 19823 from 65 to 100 of the Re-
spondent's members were unemployed and avail-
able for work in the Muscatine area . On 11 January
Russell and Weaver refused to accept travel serv-
ice dues from Pappas and several other travelers,
but accepted the travel service dues from Traveler
Foreman Tipton and Mayhew and issued receipts
valid until 15 January. Because of bad weather, the
Employer's superintendent Wendall Johnson decid-
ed that no work would be performed that day. In
accordance with the project agreement, each em-
ployee who showed up for work was paid 2 hours
showup pay. On this same day, Weaver asked
Johnson to hire some of the Respondent's mem-
bers. Johnson responded that the Employer did not
need any more ironworkers. Thereafter, on several
occasions in January, union steward Jim Smith re-
quested a layoff list from Johnson. Johnson replied
that he did not have such a list and did not plan to
lay off any employees.
On 13 January Weaver spoke with several trav-
elers and requested that they quit their employment
so that some of the unemployed members of the
Respondent could be hired.4 Weaver also told
Pappas and fellow traveler Sylvan Hoiness that he
would ask the Employer to lay off the travelers so
that they could receive unemployment compensa-
tion. Smith also told traveler Foreman Tipton that
the Employer was drawing up a layoff list affecting
50 percent of the travelers and then would replace
them with the Respondent's members.
On 15 January Smith informed the travelers that
as of 18 January the Respondent would no longer
accept their travel service dues. On 18 January at
the Respondent's office, Weaver refused to accept
travel service dues from 15 travelers, but did
accept dues from traveler Foremen Tipton and
Mayhew and issued valid receipts through 22 Janu-
ary. Later that same day at the jobsite, Smith told
3 All dates hereinafter are 1982 unless otherwise indicated
4 The parties stipulated that the past practice among ironworkers was
for travelers to leave an area upon request of the local when local mem-
bers were out of work
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the travelers that "[the Respondent] was not telling
them they could not work, but if they did work
without travel service dues receipts, Respondent
would prefer internal union charges against them in
accordance with Respondent's constitution and
bylaws."5 However because of bad weather again
there was no work performed that day and each
employee received 2 hours showup pay.
On 19 January at the jobsite, Smith again refused
to accept Pappas' and the other nonforemen travel-
ers' travel service dues. In response to a question
from Pappas, Smith stated that Pappas could work
if he were a member of the Respondent. Later,
Johnson told the travelers that the Employer had
work for them and would like for them to work,
but he understood the situation between the travel-
ers and the Respondent. Johnson assured the trav-
elers that they would not be terminated or laid off
if they did not go to work. None of the employees
worked that day and all were paid 2 hours showup
pay. The following day, Smith told the travelers
that even though he would not accept their travel
service dues, all of them could work that day with-
out their travel service dues receipts, and he would
not prefer internal union charges against them. All
of the travelers worked that day.
On 22 January Smith told the travelers that as of
25 January the Respondent would accept travel
service dues only from the seven traveler foremen;
that only the five traveler foremen whose dues
were not accepted on the 18th had to pay the cur-
rent week's dues and for all other travelers that
week's travel service dues was a "gift" from
Weaver. Thereafter, on 25 January, Weaver ac-
cepted travel service dues from the seven traveler
foremen who received receipts valid until 29 Janu-
ary. At the jobsite Smith refused to accept travel
service dues from Pappas and the nine other travel-
ers and threatened to file internal union charges
against them if they worked without their travel
service dues receipts. Only 3 ironworker employees
who were members of the Respondent worked that
day; however, the Employer paid the 10 travelers
2 hours showup pay. The next day Smith again re-
fused to accept the travelers dues and repeated his
threat to file internal union charges if they worked
without their receipts. The Employer's general
foreman Ron Smith informed the travelers that
they would not be laid off or terminated but the
company could no longer give them "show-up"
pay. Again this resulted in only three ironworkers
who were members of the Respondent working
that day. The following day Smith again refused to
accept Pappas' and the other nine travelers' dues
5 Art XXI, sec 36, supra
and again threatened them with the filing of inter-
nal union charges if they worked without their
dues receipts. Only three of the Respondent's mem-
bers worked that day. On 28 January this same se-
quence of events occurred except that the Re-
spondent's International sent a telegram to the Re-
spondent, with a copy to the Employer, directing
the Respondent to immediately accept travel serv-
ice dues from the travelers at the jobsite.
On 29 January the Respondent's steward J.
Smith told the travelers that the Respondent would
accept travel service dues for the week beginning I
February from all travelers who had in their pos-
session union membership cards and their current
home local monthly union dues receipts. Based on
this requirement Smith then accepted travel service
dues from three traveler foremen, Pappas, and nine
other travelers, but would not accept the travel
service dues from Hoiness, Harbin, Wheatman, and
W. Smith because they did not have a current
home local monthly dues receipt. Later that day
the Respondent's steward J. Smith told Pappas
that, if he would drop his charge against the Re-
spondent, the Respondent would accept the travel
service dues from the four travelers he had earlier
refused. Pappas refused to withdraw his charge.
Subsequently, Weaver asked Johnson to hire four
of the Respondent's members and Johnson refused.
Later at the Respondent's office, Weaver received
telephone calls from the home locals of Wheatman
and Smith certifying that their home local dues
were paid. Weaver then accepted their travel serv-
ice dues. Traveler Harbin also received his home
local dues receipt in the mail and Weaver accepted
his travel service dues. However, when Hoiness
sought to have the Respondent's clerical call his
home local in Calgary, Canada, for verification of
payment she refused based on instructions from
Weaver. As a result of the Respondent's actions
only three members of the Respondent worked that
day.
On 1 February all of the ironworkers except for
Hoiness were working, and the next day Hoiness
attempted to pay his travel service dues by show-
ing the Respondent a telegram indicating that he
had wired money to his home local for payment of
his monthly dues. Weaver refused to accept Hoi-
ness' telegram as proof of payment and refused his
travel service dues and stated that he would do so
only when Hoiness had his union dues receipt in
his possession. All ironworkers except Hoiness
worked that day.
From 3 through February 7 Hoiness tendered his
travel service dues to the Respondent who refused
to accept them, and Smith told Hotness that he
would prefer internal union charges against him if
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 111 (STEEL BUILDERS)
he worked without a travel service dues receipt.
All ironworkers except Hoiness worked during this
period. On 8 February Hoiness went to work with-
out a travel service dues receipt. Acting steward
Demis Hernandez wrote down Hoiness' name,
home local number, and book number and stated
that he was going to bring internal union charges
against him. Hotness continued to work. On 22
February the president of Hoiness' local called the
Respondent and verified that Hoiness' home local
monthly dues were paid. The Respondent then ac-
cepted Hoiness' travel service dues and gave him a
receipt. Thereafter, the Respondent regularly ac-
cepted all travel service dues tendered by the trav-
elers.
On 26 March and 28 April Pappas and four
other ironworkers were laid off by the Employer
because of lack of work.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the Respond-
ent had a statutory duty to treat fairly all members
of the unit it represented at the Employer 's site in-
cluding the travelers and that it engaged in a
course of unlawful conduct designed to force the
travelers to quit their employment with the Em-
ployer. The General Counsel further contends that
a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when in oper-
ation of a hiring hall it coerces employees previ-
ously referred out into quitting their jobs because
of their lack of local union membership and that
such coercion does not have to result in an em-
ployee quitting in order for it to be unlawful. Sachs
Electric Co., 248 NLRB 669 ( 1980), sub nom.
NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBE W Local 453, enfd.
668 F . 2d 991 (8th Cir . 1981). The General Counsel
further contends that , although requiring a work
permit for nonmembers for a fee for use of a hiring
hall is not in itself illegal, a union violates Section
8(b)(1)(A) when it requires a work permit as a con-
dition of employment and the facts existing herein
are analogous to that situation . Iron Workers Local
426 (Great Lakes Contracting), 180 NLRB 856
(1970). The General Counsel also asserts that the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) by repeatedly
requesting the Employer to provide a layoff list
and by coercing and restraining the travelers in
withholding their labor from the Employer.
The Respondent contends that it did not violate
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by its refusal to accept the trav-
elers' travel service dues because the decision to
accept or reject is an internal union matter which
is protected by the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A).
Moreover , the Respondent asserts that it never told
the travelers that they could not work for the Em-
ployer without travel service dues receipts. The
745
Respondent further contends that in the construc-
tion industry past practice has been for travelers to
leave a particular jurisdiction at the request of the
local union when the work opportunities for local
workers declined. Further, this quid pro quo has
existed because locals inform others of the avail-
ability of work opportunities within their area and
historically the Board has found this practice not to
be an unfair labor practice. Moreover, this case is
not analogous to Sachs Electric Co., supra, because,
unlike Sachs, the Respondent does not operate an
exclusive hiring hall, and since no traveler quit his
job, there was no coercive impact from the Re-
spondent's actions.
D. Analysis and Conclusion
The Respondent misconstrues the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by contending that its conduct is
simply an internal union matter and not proscribed
by the Act. It is well established that Section
8(b)(1)(A) makes it an unfair labor practice for a
union to restrain or coerce any employee in the ex-
ercise of his or her Section 7 rights. Although the
proviso permits a union to prescribe rules with re-
spect to acquisition and retention of membership, a
union's ability to enforce such rules in such a way
that it affects a member's employment status is re-
stricted.6
It is undisputed that, historically, the Respond-
ent's travel service dues collection policies and
practices were flexible and fairly openhanded. At
times travelers were allowed to pay dues for up to
I month in advance and could pay dues not only
for themselves but for other travelers without
having to show their home local dues books. It is
also undisputed that the Respondent accepted tele-
phone calls from travelers' home locals verifying
payment of their local dues In some instances of
financial hardship the Respondent would waive for
1 week the requirement that home local dues had
to be current before it would accept travel service
dues.
There is also no dispute that in January and Feb-
ruary 1982 a significant number of the Respond-
ent's members were unemployed while Pappas and
the other travelers enjoyed employment with the
Employer. We find for the following reasons that
the Respondent engaged in a deliberate pattern of
conduct consisting of threats and coercion designed
to force the travelers into quitting their jobs so that
the Respondent's members could be hired by the
Employer in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) Sachs
Electric Co, 248 NLRB 669 (1980), enfd. sub nom.
6 NLRB v Allis-Chalmers Mfg Co, 388 U S 175 (1967)
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 453, 668
F.2d 991 (8th Cir. 1981).
Toward this end, the evidence shows that for
several weeks on a daily basis the Respondent re-
fused to accept the properly tendered travel serv-
ice dues from Pappas and the other travelers while
threatening them with filing internal union charges
if they worked for the Employer without valid
travel service dues receipts. The Respondent also
threatened Pappas and the other travelers with loss
of employment after they refused the Respondent's
request that they quit by stating that it was request-
ing the Employer to lay them off and that the Em-
ployer was drawing up a layoff list that would
affect at least one-half of the travelers. Although
Pappas and the other travelers showed up for work
at the Employer's worksite each day, they were ef-
fectively restrained from working by the Respond-
ent's discriminatory manipulation of its rules and
coercive threats. Further, we find that in response
to its International's directive to "immediately
accept all traveler dues," the Respondent continued
its unlawful pressure on the travelers by applying
its heretofore liberal interpretation of its dues-col-
lection policies and practices in a disparate manner.
Although the Respondent's International constitu-
tion defines the necessary documents to be present-
ed when paying travel service dues, we find that
the Respondent's strict application and manipula-
tion of its rules resulted in travelers Hoiness,
Harbin, Wheatman, and W. Smith being unable to
satisfy the requirement that they have their home
local union dues receipts in their possession. The
Respondent's unlawful motivation in this regard is
shown by its offer to Pappas that if he dropped his
charges the Respondent would accept the dues of
the four travelers. When Pappas refused the Re-
spondent's offer, the Respondent then asked the
Employer to replace the four travelers with the
Respondent's members. We particularly note the
Respondent's discriminatory and disparate treat-
ment of traveler Hoiness who, because of the Re-
spondent's manipulations of its rules, was the last
traveler to return to work. Although Hoiness' re-
quest that the Respondent call his home local in
Calgary, Canada, for verification that his dues
were paid may have been a little beyond the Re-
spondent's past practices, we nevertheless find that
the Respondent's refusal to accept Hoiness' tele-
gram verifying payment of his dues is discriminato-
ry and is further evidence of the Respondent's
intent to use its internal rules to force the travelers
into leaving
It is clear that the Respondent's coercive con-
duct had an impact on the travelers' employment
status, for there were many days when they were
unable to work because they found themselves in a
"catch 22" situation whereby the key to their con-
tinued ability to work for the Employer and indeed
any other employer in that area was withheld from
them by the Respondent. They knew that if they
worked without a travel dues receipt they would
be subject to the Respondent's making good its
threat to file internal union charges against them,
but if they quit and left they probably would not
be eligible for unemployment compensation. In
Sachs, supra, the Board evidenced an understanding
that coercion that is more subtle than actual vio-
lence can be equally effective in accomplishing a
discriminatory purpose and "travelers asked to quit
under circumstances such as those present in the
instant case undoubtedly are aware that the 're-
quests' come from union officials who, by virtue of
their responsibilities in administering the hiring
hall, control, and will continue to control, the trav-
elers' livelihoods within the hiring hall's jurisdic-
tion." Thus, in applying the policy of Sachs, supra,
we find that the Respondent may not properly
resort to manipulation of its internal union rules in
order to restrain and coerce traveler employees
into withholding their labor or quitting their em-
ployment against their will. Sachs at 670. Electrical
Workers IBEW Local 309 (R. Dron Electrical), 212
NLRB 409 (1974); see also Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 453 (Southern Sun Electric), 263
NLRB 862 (1983); AMF Inc., 247 NLRB 231, 233
(1980).
The Respondent also contends that Sachs does
not apply in this matter because it does not operate
an exclusive hiring hall. We have previously noted
that the Respondent's project agreement with the
Employer contains a referral provision requiring
the Employer first to seek employees from the Re-
spondent and only if the Respondent within 48
hours is unable to fill the Employer's request can
the Employer hire workers from other sources.
The stipulated facts also show that three of the Re-
spondent's members and all 17 of the travelers
were referred out of the Respondent's hiring hall
and constituted the Employer's entire work force.
Therefore, we find that in this particular instance
the above factors establish that the Respondent op-
erated an exclusive hiring hall. Sachs at 670; Team-
sters Local 357 v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961). It is
also well established that a union violates the Act if
it coerces employees previously referred out of its
hiring hall into quitting their jobs based on "imper-
missible considerations" such as in the instant
matter the Respondent's large number of unem-
ployed members and/or the travelers' nonmember-
ship in that particular local union. B. Dron Electri-
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 111 (STEEL BUILDERS)
cal, supra . In Philadelphia Sheraton ,7 the court of
appeals stated that "the comprehensive authority
vested in the union , as the exclusive agent of the
employees, leads inevitably to employee depend-
ence on the labor organization . There necessarily
arises out of this dependence a fiduciary duty that
the union deal fairly with employees . [Citations
omitted .]" Thus the Respondent had an obligation
not to conduct itself in an arbitrary, individious, or
discriminatory manner when representing the trav-
eler employees referred out by it. Therefore, we
conclude in agreement with the General Counsel
that the Respondent by conditioning the tenure of
travelers in their jobs on its level of unemployed
members further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). See,
e.g., NLRB v. General Motors Corp ., 373 U S 734,
742 (1963).
The Respondent also contends that no effort was
made by it to involve the Employer in its dispute
with the travelers and therefore Section 8(b)(2) was
not violated . However, the stipulated facts show
that the Employer was made aware of the dispute
by the Respondent 's repeated requests of the Em-
ployer that it hire its members to replace the trav-
elers and draw up layoff lists even though the Re-
spondent knew the Employer had no present plans
to effectuate a layoff Further, the Employer ac-
knowledged its awareness of the dispute when
Johnson told the travelers that "the Employer had
work for them and would like for them to work
but that because he understood the situation be-
tween the travelers and Respondent , the Employer
would not terminate or layoff the travelers if they
did not work."
Section 8(b)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice
for a union or its agents to cause, or attempt to
cause an employer, to discriminate in regard to hire
or any term or condition of employment to encour-
age or discourage membership in any labor organi-
zation . In NLRB v. Radio Officers, 347 U.S. 17
(1954), the Court stated, "The policy of the Act is
to insulate employees ' jobs from their organization-
al rights." We agree with the General Counsel that
the Respondent was not seeking job availability in-
formation each time it asked the Employer to ef-
fectuate a layoff, but instead was attempting to
pressure the Employer into discriminatorily replac-
ing the travelers with its members. We also consid-
er the Respondent 's actions of coercing the travel-
ers into withholding their services from the Em-
ployer to be a form of indirect pressure on the Em-
ployer to discriminate against the travelers and
accede to the Respondent 's request . Therefore, we
conclude that the Respondent has further violated
' NLRB v Hotel Employees Local 568 (Philadelphia Sheraton), 320 F 2d
254, 258 (3d Cir 1963), enfg 136 NLRB 888 (1962)
747
Section 8(b)(2). IBEW Local 112 (Ajax Electric),
231 NLRB 162 (1977); R. Dron Electrical, supra,
212 NLRB at 415; see, e.g., Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 3 (Mulvhill Electric Contracting), 266
NLRB 224 (1983); Lummus Co. v. NLRB, 339 F.2d
728, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1964).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily and disparately refusing to
accept properly tendered travel service dues from
employees Pappas, Tipton, Mayhew, Hurling,
Leirer, Harbin, Bendit, Meech, Roberts, W. Smith,
Hamilton, Burger , Hagmann , Murphy, Wheatman,
Shepard, and Hoiness because they are travelers,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
2. By threatening to file intraunion charges
against the above-named travelers and attempting
to cause Northern States Steel Builders, Inc., the
Employer, to lay off and otherwise discriminate
against them , the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause the above-named trav-
elers into quitting their jobs in order to provide
jobs for Local No. Ill's members, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
4. By coercing and restraining the above-named
travelers into withholding their labor from the Em-
ployer in order to pressure and cause the Employer
to terminate or lay off or otherwise discriminate
against them , the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, we shall order it
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Since we have found that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) we shall order
that the Respondent make whole David Pappas,
David Tipton, Richard Mayhew, Clarence Hurling,
Mark Leirer, Timothy Meech, Thomas Harbin,
Brian Bendit , Boyd Roberts , Walter Smith, Donald
Hamilton, John Burger , Dale Hagmann, Ben
Murphy, John Wheatman , John Shepard, and
Sylvan Hoiness for any loss of earnings that they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them with interest computed thereon in the
manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977).8 We shall also order that the
Respondent be required to post the appropriate no-
tices.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 111, Muscatine, Iowa, its of-
ficers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Requesting persons referred out of the Re-
spondent's hiring hall to quit their jobs because
they are not members of the Respondent Union.
(b) Refusing to accept properly tendered travel
service dues or applying its rules regarding pay-
ment of dues in a discriminatory and disparate
manner to David Pappas and other similarly affect-
ed travelers because of their lack of membership in
the Respondent Union or because of any other ar-
bitrary or unfair consideration.
(c) Threatening to file intraunion charges against
David Pappas and other travelers because they re-
fused to quit their jobs and are not members of the
Respondent Union.
(d) Attempting to cause the Employer to lay off
or in any other manner discriminate against David
Pappas and other travelers in violation of Section
8(b)(2).
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Accept all properly tendered travel service
dues from David Pappas or any other traveler
without regard to whether they are members of the
Respondent Union.
(b) Make whole David Pappas, David Tipton,
Richard Mayhew, Clarence Hurling, Mark Leier,
Timothy Meech, Thomas Harbin , Brian Bendit,
Boyd Roberts, Walter Smith, Donald Hamilton,
John Burger, Dale Hagmann, Ben Murphy, John
Wheatman, John Shepard, and Sylvan Hoiness, and
any other similarly affected traveler for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered because of the dis-
crimination against them in the manner set forth in
the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at conspicuous places in the Union's
business office, meeting hall, and other places
where notices to its members are customarily
posted copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
8 Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
pendix."9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 33, after
being signed by a representative of the Union, shall
be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director im-
mediately upon receipt sufficient copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix" for posting by
Northern States Steel Builders, Inc., if willing, in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
9 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain by requests or
threats of internal union charges travelers who are
members of other Iron Workers' locals into quit-
ting their jobs in this area in order to make room
for International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local
No. 111, members who are unemployed.
WE WILL NOT threaten to file or file intraunion
charges against any employee whom we represent
because he refused to quit a job in this area and WE
WILL NOT threaten to file or file intraunion charges
IRON WORKERS LOCAL III (STEEL BUILDERS) 749
against any employee who works without payment
of travel service dues after the tender of such dues
has been rejected by us.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause North-
ern States Steel Builders, Inc. or any other employ-
er to lay off or in any other manner discriminate
against any individual because such individual is
not a member of Local 111 , or for any reason other
than such employee's refusal to tender dues and
fees uniformly required of all unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole with interest David
Pappas, Clarence Hurling, Boyd Roberts, Brian
Bendit , Sylvan Hoiness, Mark Leier , Walter Smith,
Donald Hamilton, Timothy Meech, Thomas
Harbin , John Burger , Dale Hagmann , Ben Murphy,
John Wheatman, and John Shepard, David Tipton,
Richard Mayhew , and any other similarly affected
employee, for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by reason of our discrimination against
them.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNA-
MENTAL IRON WORKERS , AFL-CIO,
LOCAL No. 111