Iron Workers Local 396 (J. L. Harris Steel Contractors)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1993

310 N.L.R.B. 1255 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1255
310 NLRB No. 217
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 396 (J. L. HARRIS STEEL CONTRACTORS)
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
The judge inadvertently referred to James Nelson as the Respond-
ent’s superintendent, rather than as the Employer’s superintendent.
2 In adopting the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, we note that because an objective of the
Respondent’s conduct was to cause the Employer to remove John
Riffle from his position as foreman and to hire instead members of
the Respondent for that position, the Respondent’s conduct con-
stituted direct coercion of the Employer’s selection of 8(b)(1)(B)
representatives. Masters, Mates & Pilots (Marine Transport), 301
NLRB 526, 528 (1991).
1 Much of the evidence from which the factfindings are drawn is
uncontroverted. Where credibility resolutions are necessary, they
have been made after consideration of relevant objective evidence,
the inherent probabilities in all the circumstances, the presence or
absence of convincing corroborating testimony, inconsistencies and
evasions, the common fallibility of human recollection of minute de-
tail, the interests of witnesses in the outcome of the litigation, and
comparative testimonial demeanor. It is obvious from the findings
which witnesses were credited and which were not.
2 All dates are 1992 unless otherwise noted.
Local No. 396, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Ma-
chinery Movers and Riggers of St. Louis and
Vicinity, AFL–CIO (J. L. Harris Steel Contrac-
tors, Inc.) and John W. Riffle. Case 14–CB–
7770
May 7, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On August 14, 1992, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Local 396, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Machinery Movers and Riggers of St. Louis
and Vicinity, AFL–CIO, St. Louis, Missouri, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
Lynette K. Zuch and Dorothy D. Wilson, Esqs., for the Gen-
eral Counsel.
Barry J. Levine, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge. This pro-
ceeding was litigated before me at St. Louis, Missouri, on
June 10, 1992, pursuant to charges filed by John W. Riffle
on January 8, 1992, and amended on February 10, 1992, and
complaint issued February 12, 1992, alleging that the above-
named labor organization (Respondent) violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by
causing and attempting to cause J. L. Harris Steel Contrac-
tors, Inc. (Harris) to remove Riffle from his job as a fore-
man. The Union denies the commission of unfair labor prac-
tices.
On the entire record, and after considering the testimonial
demeanor of the witnesses and the posttrial briefs submitted
by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER (HARRIS)
Harris is a corporation engaged as a construction con-
tractor furnishing and installing reinforcing steel,
posttensioning systems, miscellaneous iron, and related items,
with principal offices in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, and Ar-
nold, Missouri. In the conduct of this business during the 12-
month period ending January 31, 1992, Harris purchased and
received at its Arnold, Missouri facility goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Mis-
souri and has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act at all
times material to this proceeding.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent is and has been at all times material a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES1
John W. Riffle was working as a foreman for Harris at the
Bissell Point Trickling Filter Project on January 6, 1992,2
when the events with which this proceeding is concerned
commenced. Riffle has been employed by Harris as a fore-
man at various jobsites for about 10 years. The complaint al-
leges, Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material
to this proceeding Riffle has been a foreman for Harris, a su-
pervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and
a representative of Harris for purposes of collective bar-
gaining or the adjustment of grievances within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. He is a member of Re-
spondent’s sister Local No. 301, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL–CIO,
which is officed at Charleston, West Virginia. The parties
stipulated that Riffle paid weekly travel service fees to Re-
spondent and was issued travel dues receipts during the pe-
riod from April 3, 1991, through the week of December 30,
1991, and further stipulated that Riffle tendered travel service
dues on January 6, 1992, but Respondent refused to accept
and continues to refuse to accept this tender or to issue a re-
1256 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 I do not credit Hunt that he had no such call from Nelson. Hunt
was not a particularly convincing witness on this point and he re-
turned the fee early on the morning of January 6 after he had been
told at the Respondent’s offices away from the jobsite between 7:15
and 7:45 a.m. that morning, according to Respondent’s business
manager, Boulware, that no permit would be issued Riffle which, to-
gether with the fact the work at the site began at 7 a.m., further per-
suades me it is most probable Hunt was given the fee, pursuant to
the standard practice, the previous week.
4 Riffle was a more convincing witness than Hunt and is credited
where they conflict.
ceipt for travel service fees to Riffle who continues to be a
paid-up member of Local 301.
The constitution of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Respondent’s par-
ent, provides in article XXI, Local Unions, in relevant part,
as follows:
Sec. 35. Members of one Local Union shall not seek
employment, be employed, or remain at work at the
trade within the territorial jurisdiction of another Local
Union without the consent of such other Local Union,
which consent may be evidenced by its acceptance of
the clearance card presented to it by the member in-
volved, as provided in the Constitution or by the issu-
ance of the service dues receipt hereinafter described.
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
receipts as shall be issued to the member by the said
Business Representative under the regulations estab-
lished 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 procedures of em-
ployment 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.
. . . .
Sec. 53. No Local Union shall for any cause whatso-
ever deprive members of this Association of their Gen-
eral Foremen, Superintendents or Foremen’s rights un-
less approved by the General Executive Board.
The current collective-bargaining agreement between Re-
spondent and Harris contains a salary schedule for foremen
and general foremen as well as the following provisions con-
cerning their selection:
ARTICLE 6
Foreman
Section 6.01 Where two (2) or more journeymen are
employed, one (1) shall be selected by the Employer to
act as foreman and receive foreman’s wages, and the
foreman is the only representative of the Employer who
shall issue instructions to the employees.
There shall be no restriction on the part of the Union
as to the employment of foremen or pushers. The Em-
ployer may employ on one piece of work as many fore-
men or pushers as in his judgment is necessary for the
safe, expeditious and economical handling of the same.
Section 6.02 When two (2) or more foremen are em-
ployed on one job doing the same type work by the
Employer, one (1) of them, as designated by the Em-
ployer, shall act as General Foreman and receive Gen-
eral Foreman’s wages. Appointment as General Fore-
man shall in no way relieve such employee of his du-
ties as foreman.
Section 6.03 There shall be a foreman in each sheet-
ing gang and a foreman in each raising gang. A min-
imum of one (1) foreman shall be appointed to cover
all other work on the same job when there are more
than two (2) Iron Workers Involved.
Until January it had been the practice, by agreement of the
parties to the contract, for Harris to advise Respondent of the
identity of those employees it had designated foremen. Re-
spondent would then investigate to assure the designees were
paid-up members of their home local union. After which Re-
spondent, on payment by the foremen of a weekly travel
service fee of $5, would issue them receipts. This had been
the practice with Riffle who would pay the fee through the
job steward, Joseph Hunt III, on the Friday prior to the week
for which it was due. Hunt then delivered the fee to the Re-
spondent’s office, secured a receipt, and delivered the receipt
to Riffle on the Monday of the week for which it was paid.
James Nelson, Respondent’s superintendent, credibly testi-
fied that he called Hunt on the evening of January 5 and re-
minded him to pick up Riffle’s travel service fee receipt for
the following week beginning January 6. Riffle was on vaca-
tion and had left money to pay the fees with Hunt.3 On the
morning of January 6, between 7:15 and 7:45 a.m. according
to Robert Boulware, Respondent’s business manager, Hunt
told Boulware he had come to pick up the travel service fee
receipt for Riffle. Boulware told him the receipt would not
be issued and gave Hunt no reason for this decision.
Boulware testified he continued to refuse to give any reason
to Riffle or Harris for the refusal to accept fees and issue
a receipt up to and during his testimony before me when he
stated, with a degree of arrogance in manner and delivery,
he did not believe he had to have a reason for his action and
simply did not want to receive the fees and issue the receipt
to Riffle. Pressed by me, he finally testified that his reason
was his concern over Riffle’s presence on another project the
week prior to January 6 without the appropriate payment of
travel fees. There is no evidence other than Boulware’s bare
assertion that Riffle appeared on another project on January
2 or 3 that this was indeed the case. Boulware’s reluctant
testimony that this occurred and was the reason for refusing
Riffle’s fees had not the ring of truth and is not credited.
Returning to the jobsite on January 6, Hunt returned the
proffered fee to Riffle and told him his ‘‘work permit’’
would not be renewed and Riffle could work on January 6
but had to then leave the job. Asked why, Hunt advised that
Boulware had said work was ‘‘intermittent.’’4 Riffle reported
this to Nelson. I believe Nelson was mistaken when he testi-
fied Hunt advised him on January 6 of the refusal to accept
Riffle’s fee tender and told Nelson to instruct Riffle not to
work after January 6. In concluding it was in fact Riffle, not
1257IRON WORKERS LOCAL 396 (J. L. HARRIS STEEL CONTRACTORS)
5 The travel service fee receipt is sometimes referred to as a
‘‘work permit’’ or ‘‘dobie.’’
6 Boulware’s denial that he gave Riffle any reason for his action
is not credited.
7 Basham, a more convincing, detailed, and straightforward witness
than Boulware, is credited.
8 Red is Boulware’s nickname.
9 It is obvious from this conclusion that I have credited Riffle,
Nelson, and Basham that Hathman directly ordered Riffle off the
jobsite.
Hunt, who advised Nelson of Hunt’s message on January 6,
I have noted Hunt’s denial, Riffle’s testimony he so told Nel-
son, and Deborah Basham’s credited testimony Nelson told
her on January 6 that Riffle had reported Hunt’s conduct to
Nelson. Riffle also called Basham on January 6 concerning
the refusal to accept and receipt his travel service fees.
Basham is Harris’ area manager. She assured Riffle she
would get the matter cleared up the following day.
On January 7, at about 7 a.m., Nelson called Basham and
advised that Hunt had told Riffle he could not go to work
that day because he did not have the fee receipt. That morn-
ing at about 7 a.m. Hunt had reminded Riffle, as Riffle start-
ed to don his tool belt preparatory to starting work, that he
could not work. This Nelson overheard and reported to
Basham.
Within minutes of this confrontation with Hunt, Riffle
called Boulware and asked why Boulware would not renew
his work permit.5 Boulware replied that work was intermit-
tent and he was not going to renew the work permit.6
Basham called Boulware later that day and they agreed to
meet at the jobsite. During this conversation Basham asked
what the problem was with Riffle’s work permit. Boulware
replied he had people out of work, was not going to renew
the permit, the job could be handled without Riffle, it was
not right to renew permits when his people were not work-
ing, and Riffle would not work that day.7
Nelson, Riffle, and Basham met with Boulware, Hunt, and
James Hathman, Respondent’s business agent, at Harris’ job-
site trailer that forenoon for a very few minutes. Basham
asked Boulware to renew Riffle’s work permit. He refused.
At Basham’s urging, Riffle made the same request and got
the same response. Basham credibly testified that some time
during this conversation, Boulware said Respondent had
many members out of work and was tired of Harris bringing
in out-of-town people who join Local 396 and then go on
to work for other area contractors. Hathman testified in like
manner as follows:
Q. Did the union tell you why, did Mr. Boulware tell
you why John Riffle’s travel service dues were not re-
ceived?
A. The statements earlier, it was said we had many,
many unemployed and usually when you are unem-
ployed or laid off, that means that you don’t have a job.
If you are from out of town, it is usually a practice that
you don’t come back or you can come back as a super-
visor, but if we don’t issue a permit, we don’t issue a
permit.
Q. Is this what Boulware told you as to why he did
not issue the travel service dues receipt?
A. That was the statement was made that day.
Q. By Mr. Boulware?
A. Yes.
After Boulware’s refusals to renew, Basham turned to Rif-
fle and advised him to get a lawyer. At this point Hathman,
who had been silent, broke into the conversation. Basham
and Riffle testify that Hathman told Riffle to ‘‘get the fuck
off the job.’’ Nelson elaborates that when Basham told Riffle
to get a lawyer, Hathman said, ‘‘No, you don’t want to do
that,’’ and, when Basham asked why, said ‘‘Go get you a
damn lawyer, but you get the fuck off of this job right
now.’’ According to Hathman:
I said, Debby, please don’t do this. I believe her state-
ment was, God damn it, Jimmy, I am not going to let
Red do this to me. Something to that effect.
Q. But she used the term, God damn it?
A. Yes, I believe that was the statement. Anyway, I
stepped outside with Red and I said, John, don’t do
this. I said, come on, Red, let’s get the fuck out of
here.8
No one but Hathman imputes swear words to Basham. Hunt
recalls that Hathman said, ‘‘Debby, you get the best lawyer
you can, I am getting the fuck off this jobsite.’’ Boulware
testifies Hathman says something like ‘‘Let’s get the fuck out
of here.’’
Hathman’s testimony that he was upset about a brother
union member getting an attorney and/or going to the NLRB
even though he had a job is a clear indication that his ire
was directed at Riffle. It is also fair to conclude from the
credited testimony concerning Boulware’s statements that
Boulware’s refusal to accept Riffle’s travel permit fees
stemmed from his resentment that Riffle, a member of a dis-
tant local, was working while many of Respondent’s mem-
bers were not. The record furnishes no other remotely
colorable reason for the refusal to accept Riffle’s payment.
What happened here, I believe, is that Respondent was at-
tempting to force Riffle off the job and thus possibly create
a position for one of its people. Angered at the advice that
Riffle get a lawyer to oppose Respondent, Hathman just
‘‘blew a fuse’’ and vented his spleen on Riffle by ordering
him off the job as Riffle, Nelson, and Basham claim.9 Riffle
left the site and did not return to work for Harris until April
8.
In the interim period Riffle filed the charge in the instant
case on January 8 and the parties engaged in the written ex-
changes set forth below, in pertinent part.
On February 14, Respondent’s counsel directed a letter to
Harris advising, inter alia:
As you have been previously advised, Iron Workers
Local 396 has no opposition to continued employment
of Mr. Riffle by J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. as
a supervisor. Iron Workers Local 396 has not and does
not request that Mr. Riffle or any other supervisory em-
ployee of J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. be termi-
nated from employment for any reason connected with
membership in Local 396 or any other labor organiza-
tion whether affiliated with the International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers
or any one else.
1258 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Iron Workers Local 396 will, however, insist that its
collective bargaining agreement with J. L. Harris Steel
Contractors, Inc. be complied with for employment of
journeymen iron workers as referred to in the collective
bargaining agreement. To that extent the referral proce-
dure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement
must be complied with for employment of journeymen
iron workers.
Basham replied on February 18:
Regarding your letter I received this date, actually
after reading it several times I don’t recall any prior
conversations with representatives from Iron Workers
Local 396 advising J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc.
of anything except what took place at Bissell Point
Project on January 7, 1992. Mr. John Riffle was denied
‘‘permit’’ from Business Manager, Robert ‘‘Red’’
Boulware, and quote Business Agent, Jim Hathman (
Jim Hathman to John Riffle ) You get the Fuck off the
jobsite.
Mr. Levine, due to the circumstances regarding Mr.
John Riffle’s employment, he was reprimand[ed] by
Union Officials and it’s the Union Officials that need
be informed of the contents in collective bargaining
agreement. Mr. Riffle was not terminated by any rep-
resentatives of JLH Steel Contractors, Inc., Iron Work-
ers Local 396 representatives opposed Mr. Riffle’s em-
ployment. Since Union Officials terminated Mr. Riffle
personally it would be only adequate to address Mr.
Riffle directly.
J.L. Harris Steel has always been in compliance with
employment of Journeymen Iron Workers as stipulated
in collective bargaining agreement and will continue to
do so. If Union Representatives would abide by their
working agreement Mr. John Riffle would be working
today instead he’s been out of a job for approximately
43 working days.
This drew the following rejoinder from Respondent’s counsel
on February 26, again in relevant part:
Your letter dated February 18, 1992 has been re-
ceived. I assume that it is intended to respond to cor-
respondence dated February 14, 1992 regarding the em-
ployment by J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. of John
Riffle. To make it absolutely clear to you and to J. L.
Harris Steel Contractors, Inc., Iron Workers Local 396
has no opposition to the employment by the company
of Mr. Riffle as supervisor as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act and/or as defined in the collective
bargaining agreement in effect between the parties.
Your response to the advice given you on behalf of
Iron Workers Local 396 makes no sense and can only
be interpreted to mean that J. L. Harris Steel Contrac-
tors, Inc. has absolutely no desire to hire Mr. Riffle.
Iron Workers Local 396 does not employ iron workers
for and on behalf of your company. Iron Workers Local
396 represents iron workers employees that are em-
ployed by J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. You are
free to hire Mr. Riffle has [sic] a supervisor and if you
desire to hire journeymen iron workers, then you are to
comply with the collective bargaining agreement relat-
ing to employment of journeymen and apprentices.
Continued failure of your company to hire Mr. Riffle
because of any activities that you perceive of Iron
Workers Local 396 shall require the union to take ap-
propriate legal action against J. L. Harris Steel Contrac-
tors, Inc., including, but not limited to the filing of un-
fair labor practice charges against your company and
such economic action as may be deemed appropriate in
the circumstances.
Basham again replied to Respondent on March 2 as follows:
Regarding your letter dated February 26, 1992: J. L.
Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. has no objection to
Mr.Riffle returning to the same job capacity and duties
he had on or before January 7, 1992. Mr. Riffle was
employed as a Foreman Ironworker as defined in the
collective bargaining agreement JLH has with Iron-
workers Local 396. Mr. Riffle’s request has always
been and will continue to be for his fringe benefits be
paid into Ironworkers Local 396, but as of this date Mr.
Riffle has not receive written confirmation his ‘‘per-
mit’’ has been renewed therefore he has not returned to
his job status prior to being ordered off the Bissell
Point Project.
As soon as Mr. Riffle or JLH receives written con-
firmation Mr. Riffle has been reinstated to same Fore-
man status as before and his ‘‘permit’’ will be issued
I’m sure J.L. Harris Steel & Mr. Riffle can get back
to our good relationship we have always had with Iron-
workers Local 396 and their representatives. I certainly
hope JLH has make their position clear and there is no
misunderstanding, we’ll be glad to welcome Mr. Riffle
back to his Foreman position.
The foregoing exchange of letters add nothing material to
this case. The matters alleged to be unfair labor practices
took place before the letter writing began and the messages
in these writings are irrelevant and void of probative weight
with respect to those allegations. Moreover, I agree with the
General Counsel that the studied avoidance of the use of the
word ‘‘foreman’’ in the Respondent’s letters and the oral
statements of its agents, with the substitution of ‘‘super-
visor’’ and ‘‘supervision’’ creates an ambiguity. Therefore,
to the extent the letters from Respondent may be an effort
to avoid liability they are not successful because they do not
directly address the restoration of Riffle to his job as fore-
man. The mere statement that Respondent does not oppose
his reemployment as a ‘‘supervisor’’ simply does not suffice.
Conclusion
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization or its agents ‘‘to restrain or
coerce . . . an employer in the selection of his representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjust-
ment of grievances.’’ The parties agree John W. Riffle has
been a statutory supervisor and a representative of Harris for
the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) at all
times material. When Boulware decided not to accept or
issue a receipt for Riffle’s travel service fees his plan, I con-
clude, was to force Riffle off the job and thus create an
opening for an unemployed member of Local 396. It was
reasonably predictable, as Boulware well knew, that Riffle,
1259IRON WORKERS LOCAL 396 (J. L. HARRIS STEEL CONTRACTORS)
10 In addition to the coercive and restraining effect of Respond-
ent’s conduct in the presence of Nelson and Basham, the coercive
conduct directed at Riffle out of the presence of Nelson and Basham
was indirect coercion of Harris through its representative. See, e.g.,
Elevator Constructors Local 36 (Montgomery Elevator), 305 NLRB
53 (1991).
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
a member in good standing of Respondent’s sister local,
would not choose to continue to work if his fees were not
accepted and he was directed by Respondent’s agents, as he
was, to leave the job, and, as Basham testified without con-
tradiction, the failure to pay travel service fees would bar
him from participation in the fringe benefit funds adminis-
tered by Respondent. Boulware’s real motive in withholding
the fee receipt is made crystal clear by his statement at the
January 7 meeting at the jobsite trailer that he did not care
if Riffle worked as a supervisor like Nelson. Nelson is a su-
perintendent not covered by the collective-bargaining agree-
ment, and all Boulware was really saying was he had no ob-
jection to Riffle working in a supervisory role not covered
by the agreement, thus leaving intact his objection to Riffle
working as a foreman because that position is covered by the
agreement and could, should in Boulware’s view, be occu-
pied by one of Respondent’s members. Put another way, Re-
spondent’s efforts to equate Riffle’s status with that of Nel-
son, a supervisor not covered by the collective-bargaining
agreement, amounts to nothing more than an evasion of the
plain fact the object of Respondent’s conduct was indeed to
open up a foreman’s position for another employee.
The alteration of an established practice of routinely
issuing travel service fee receipts for fees appropriately ten-
dered was effected in an effort to force Riffle from his fore-
man’s position, a position covered by the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, and thus provide a vacancy for Respond-
ent’s members. This rejection of Riffle’s proffer of fees for
an ulterior motive, accompanied by statements by Respond-
ent’s agents to Riffle and Harris officials that Riffle could
not work after January 6, culminating in Hathman’s angry
order on January 7, in the presence of Basham and Nelson,
that Riffle get off the job instanter, all viewed together, war-
rant a conclusion Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act by coercing and restraining Harris10 in the selection
of Riffle as its representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances because Respond-
ent wished to supplant him with one of its members.
Respondent’s contention that the fault for not continuing
to employ Riffle as a foreman for a time after January 6
must lie with Harris who could have lawfully retained him
strikes me as a rather unusual complaint by Respondent that
its efforts were successful. Be that as it may, even if the ef-
forts to dislodge Riffle had proven unsuccessful and whether
Harris could have retained Riffle continuously regardless of
Respondent’s efforts, the directions of the various union
agents to Riffle and other company representatives that Riffle
must get off the jobsite standing alone were clearly coercive
and restraining and violated Section 8(b)(1)(B). See, e.g.,
Teamsters Local 610 (Bianco Mfg.), 236 NLRB 1048 (1978),
enfd. 594 F.2d 1218 (8th Cir. 1979).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By refusing to accept and furnish a receipt for the pay-
ment of travel service fees by John W. Riffle, by telling John
W. Riffle and his Employer that John W. Riffle would not
be permitted to work as a foreman on the Bissel Point Trick-
ling Filter Project jobsite after January 6, 1992, and by order-
ing John W. Riffle, in the presence of the Employer’s rep-
resentatives, to leave the jobsite thereby attempting to cause
and causing the departure of John W. Riffle from the jobsite,
Respondent restrained and coerced J. L. Harris Steel Con-
tractors, Inc. and its agents in the selection of its representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining or adjustment
of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
In addition to the usual cease-and-desist and notice-posting
requirements my recommended Order shall require Respond-
ent to notify Riffle and Harris in writing that it has no objec-
tion to Riffle’s employment as a foreman by Harris on any
of its jobsites with all the benefits to which he is entitled
under the collective-bargaining agreement including, but not
limited to, participation in the various funds described in arti-
cle 5 of the agreement, and to make John W. Riffle whole
for wages and any other benefits lost between January 6 and
April 8, 1992, the backpay and thereon to be computed in
the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended11
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 396, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Machinery
Movers and Riggers of St. Louis and Vicinity, AFL–CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to accept or furnish a receipt for the tender
of travel service fees by John W. Riffle when he works on
a Harris project as a foreman in Respondent’s jurisdiction.
(b) Telling John W. Riffle and/or J. L. Harris Steel Con-
tractors, Inc. that John W. Riffle will not be permitted to
work as a foreman for the Employer on the Bissell Point
Trickling Filter Project or any other jobsite of the Employer
located in the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent, or order-
ing John W. Riffle to leave his employment as foreman on
any such project.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. in the selection and reten-
tion of its representatives for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or the adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify John W. Riffle and J. L. Harris Steel Contrac-
tors, Inc. in writing it has no objection to the employment
of John W. Riffle as a foreman by J. L. Harris Steel Contrac-
tors, Inc. on any of its jobsites within the jurisdiction of Re-
1260 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12 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
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
spondent, with all the benefits to which John W. Riffle is en-
titled by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Respondent and J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc.
(b) Make John W. Riffle whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered between January 6 and April 8,
1992, as a result of Respondent’s unlawful conduct, with in-
terest thereon, in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’12 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Furnish to the Regional Director copies of the notice
for posting by J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc., if the Em-
ployer is willing, in places where they customarily post no-
tices to their employees.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to accept or furnish a receipt for the
tender of travel service fees by John W. Riffle when he
works on a project in our jurisdiction as a foreman for J. L.
Harris Steel Contractors, Inc.
WE WILL NOT tell John W. Riffle or other representatives
of J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. that he cannot work
as a foreman for the Employer on any of its jobsites located
in our territorial jurisdiction, nor will we order John W. Rif-
fle to leave his employment as a foreman on any such
project.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or co-
erce J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc. in the selection and
retention of its representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL notify John W. Riffle and J. L. Harris Steel Con-
tractors, Inc. in writing that we have no objection to the em-
ployment of John W. Riffle as a foreman by J. L. Harris
Steel Contractors, Inc. on any of its jobsites within our juris-
diction with all the benefits to which John W. Riffle is enti-
tled by the terms of our collective-bargaining agreement with
J. L. Harris Steel Contractors, Inc.
WE WILL make John W. Riffle whole for any loss of earn-
ings or other benefits suffered between January 6 and April
8, 1992, as a result of our unlawful conduct, with interest
thereon.
LOCAL NO. 396, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNA-
MENTAL IRON WORKERS, MACHINERY MOV-
ERS AND RIGGERS OF ST. LOUIS AND VICIN-
ITY, AFL–CIO