LABORERS��� INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 91 (COUNCIL OF UTILITY CONTRACTORS,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 2017

365 NLRB No. 28 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 28
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Laborers’ International Union of North America,
Local Union No. 91 (Council of Utility Contrac-
tors, Inc. and Various Other Employers) and
Frank S. Mantell. Case 03–CB–163940
February 7, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS
PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
On September 7, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Ar-
thur J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Re-
spondent filed a brief in reply. The General Counsel
filed a cross-exception with supporting argument, the
Respondent filed an answering brief,1 and the General
Counsel filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set forth in full below.2
We agree with the judge, for the reasons he stated and
for the additional reasons set forth below, that the Re-
spondent, in operating its nonexclusive hiring hall, vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by removing the
Charging Party, Frank S. Mantell, from its out-of-work
referral list between October 12 and November 19, 2015.
In Office Employees Local 251 (Sandia National La-
boratories), 331 NLRB 1417 (2000), the Board clarified
the scope of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by finding that internal
union discipline may give rise to a violation only if the
union’s conduct: (1) affects the employment relationship,
(2) impairs access to the Board’s processes, (3) pertains
to unacceptable methods of union coercion, such as
physical violence in organizational or strike contexts, or
(4) otherwise impairs policies imbedded in the Act. Id.

1 The Respondent’s answer to the General Counsel’s cross-
exception was contained in the same document as its reply brief in
support of its own exceptions.
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decision in AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143
(2016), and to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language. We
shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
The General Counsel seeks a make-whole remedy that includes con-
sequential damages incurred as a result of the Respondent’s unfair labor
practice. The relief sought would require a change in Board law. Hav-
ing duly considered the matter, we are not prepared at this time to devi-
ate from our current remedial practice. Accordingly, we decline to
order this relief at this time.
at 1418, 1424. If the union’s discipline is found to be
within the scope of Section 8(b)(1)(A), the Board then
weighs the Section 7 rights of the union member against
the legitimate interests of the union to determine whether
the discipline violates the Act. See Service Employees
Local 254 (Brandeis University), 332 NLRB 1118, 1122
(2000) (determining whether a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) occurred involves balancing the employees’
Section 7 rights against the legitimacy of the union inter-
est at issue).
Here, as the judge found, the Respondent’s discipline
had an impact on the employment relationship. Specifi-
cally, by removing Mantell from the out-of-work referral
list, the Respondent deprived him of employment oppor-
tunities. See Electrical Workers Local 2321 (Verizon),
350 NLRB 258 (2007) (finding union discipline impact-
ed the employment relationship where it resulted in less
opportunity to work overtime).
Next, under Sandia, we must balance Mantell’s Sec-
tion 7 rights against the legitimacy of the union interests
at stake. At issue is Mantell’s posting of statements on
Facebook that criticized the Respondent’s Business
Manager Richard Palladino for failing to apply estab-
lished union policies by giving Glen Choolokian, a Niag-
ara Falls city councilman running in the Democratic pri-
mary for mayor, a journeyman’s book without having
him go through the required apprenticeship program.
Mantell’s Facebook posts raised issues concerning the
efficacy and fairness of the Respondent’s operations and
procedures. As the Board has recognized, it is “elemen-
tary” that “an employee’s right to engage in intraunion
activities in opposition to the incumbent leadership of his
union is concerted activity protected by Section 7.”
Steelworkers Local 1397 (U.S. Steel Corp.), 240 NLRB
848, 849 (1979); accord Laborers Local 836 (Corbet
Construction), 307 NLRB 801, 803 (1992) (members
have a statutory right to object to the way officers oper-
ate the union); Plasterers Local 121, 264 NLRB 192
(1982) (individual’s criticism of union leadership is pro-
tected by the Act). Accordingly, we adopt the judge’s
finding that Mantell engaged in protected, concerted ac-
tivity by posting his criticisms of the Respondent and its
business manager on Facebook.3
We next examine the Union’s interests at stake in this
case. The Respondent contends that Mantell’s Facebook
posts damaged both its reputation in general as well as
the reputation of Palladino as business manager, the lat-

3 Citing MasTec Advanced Technologies, 357 NLRB 103, 107
(2011), the judge rejected the Respondent’s assertion that Mantell lost
the protection of the Act by maliciously defaming the Union and its
Business Manager Palladino. In adopting the judge’s finding, we note
that no party has excepted to the judge’s application of MasTec.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
ter of which adversely affected Palladino’s ability to ef-
fectively perform his leadership responsibilities. We find
that Mantell’s Section 7 right to press the union to
change its policies, especially those policies affecting
members’ employment opportunities, outweighs the Re-
spondent’s vague claim that its reputation was damaged.
See Electrical Workers Local 2321 (Verizon), 350 NLRB
at 262–263 (although the union had a legitimate interest
in maintaining the loyalty and solidarity of its members,
this interest did not outweigh the interest of its members
to engage in their Section 7 rights to work voluntary
overtime contrary to the union’s request). Therefore, we
agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by removing Mantell from its out-
of-work referral list between October 12 and November
19, 2015.
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
removing the Charging Party, Frank S. Mantell, from its
out-of-work referral list between October 12 and No-
vember 19, 2015, we shall also order the Respondent to
make Mantell whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimina-
tion against him. Backpay shall be computed in accord-
ance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In addition, we shall order the Respondent to compen-
sate Frank S. Mantell for any adverse tax consequences
of receiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file with
the Regional Director for Region 3, within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement
or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to
the appropriate calendar year. AdvoServ of New Jersey,
Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
In accordance with our recent decision in King Soop-
ers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), we shall also order
the Respondent to compensate Mantell for his search-for-
work and interim employment expenses regardless of
whether those expenses exceed interim earnings. Search-
for-work and interim employment expenses shall be cal-
culated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest
at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, com-
pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
Center, supra.4
Further, the Respondent shall be required to remove
from its files any reference to the removal of Mantrell
from its out-of-work list, and notify him in writing that
this has been done and that his removal from the list will
not be used against him in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Laborers’ International Union of North
America, Local Union No. 91, Niagara Falls, New York,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Removing employees from its out-of-work referral
list in retaliation for activity protected by Section 7 of the
Act, including criticizing the Union or any of its deci-
sions.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify Frank Mantell in writing that it will make
employment referrals available to him in his rightful or-
der of priority, without regard to his exercise of Section 7
rights.
(b) Make Frank Mantell whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of removing him
from the out-of-work referral list, in the manner set forth
in the amended remedy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the removal of Mantell
from its out-of-work referral list, and, within 3 days
thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done
and that his removal from the list will not be used against
him in any way.
(d) Compensate Frank Mantell for the adverse tax con-
sequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and file with the Regional Director for Region 3,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
year.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all hiring hall and refer-

4 For the reasons stated in his separate opinion in King Soopers, su-
pra, slip op. at 9–16, Acting Chairman Miscimarra would adhere to the
Board’s former approach, treating search-for-work and interim em-
ployment expenses as an offset against interim earnings.
LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 91 3
(COUNCIL OF UTILITY CONTRACTORS, INC. AND VARIOUS OTHER EMPLOYERS)
ral records, and any other records and documents, includ-
ing an electronic copy of such records if stored in elec-
tronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its hiring hall in Niagara Falls, New York, and all other
places where notices to members are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Cop-
ies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 3, after being signed by the Respond-
ent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. In addition to physical
posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or
an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
spondent customarily communicates with its members by
such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 3, a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 7, 2017
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Acting Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

5 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT remove any of you from our out-of-work
referral list in retaliation for activity protected by Section
7 of the Act, including criticizing the Union or any of its
decisions.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL notify Frank Mantell in writing that we will
make employment referrals available to him in his right-
ful order of priority, without regard to his exercise of
Section 7 rights.
WE WILL make Frank Mantell whole for any of loss
earnings or other benefits suffered as a result of our re-
moving him from our out-of-work referral list.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the remov-
al of Mantell from our out-of-work referral list, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that
this has been done and that his removal from the list will
not be used against him in any way.
WE WILL compensate Frank Mantell for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum back-
pay award, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director
for Region 3, within 21 days of the date the amount of
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate
calendar year.
LABORERS LOCAL UNION NO. 91
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/03–CB–163940 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Linda Leslie, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Robert Boreanaz, Esq. (Lipsitz, Green, Scime, Cambria LLP),
of Buffalo, New York, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Buffalo, New York, on June 29, 2016. Frank S.
Mantell filed the charge in this matter on November 12, 2015.
The General Counsel issued the complaint on March 30, 2016,
which was amended twice, but not in any material respect.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent Union, Laborers Local Union 91, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It
represents employees who work for construction employers
who are subject to the Act and who are members of employer
associations which are subject to the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent, in operating
its nonexclusive hiring hall, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act by removing the Charging Party, Frank S. Mantell, from its
out of work list between October 12 and November 19, 2015.
In late August 2015 Mantell a member of Local 91, posted
comments on a Facebook page called Niagara Falls Uncen-
sored (GC Exhs. 4, 5, and 6). The comments criticized the
Union for allowing Glen Choolokian to obtain a journeyman’s
book. Choolokian was a Niagara Falls city councilman, run-
ning for mayor of Niagara Falls in the Democratic primary
against the incumbent. This Facebook page was accessible to
about 4,000 people, some of whom were members of Local 91.
Mantell’s objection to the Union permitting Choolokian to
acquire a journeyman’s book was that he did not go through the
Union’s 5-year apprentice program.
One of Mantell’s comments, made in response to a post ac-
cusing unions or the Union of corruption was “It’s not that we
are corrupt. It’s just the leader of our union and our small 3
man PAC committee will back any politician who will promise
benefits to us even though they are not the best choice for our
city or county.”
In response to a critic of his posts, Mantell wrote, “I am not
running for mayor and receiving gifts from our union. I am just
a voice in a rather dictatorship of a union. And I am exposing
him for who and what he is. Our union deserves better.”
The same critic wrote that the current union leadership had
saved the Union and the jobs of all its members. In response,
Mantell wrote, “More of a reason not to give a journeyman
union book to a politician when we have an apprenticeship
program in place. This kind of bad decision making does not
help us in the eyes of the International.”
Local 91’s Business Manager, Richard Palladino filed inter-
nal union charges against Mantell in early September 2015.
Palladino contended that Mantell’s comments damaged his
ability to run the local.
On September 23, 2015, the construction project on which
Mantell was working came to an end. On that day, he went to
the union hall and signed the out-of-work list. He was fifth on
the list at that time.
The Union’s executive board conducted a trial on Palladino’s
charges against Mantell on October 5, 2015. The deliberations
of the executive board focused on the aforementioned Face-
book posts. The seven-member executive board found Mantell
guilty of the charges brought by Palladino and made a decision
to fine him $5000 and suspend his membership for 24 months.
This decision was ratified at the Union’s monthly membership
meeting on October 12. The Union removed Mantell from the
hiring hall’s out-of-work list the next day.1
Mantell appealed the decision to the International Union. On
November 19, the International apprised Local 91 of the appeal
and notified it that the decision of the trial board was stayed
and ineffective until it may be upheld by the General Executive
Board of the International. Thus, Mantell was removed from
the Union’s out-of-work list from October 12 to November 19.
On December 4, 2015, the International informed Local 91 that
it dismissed the charges against Mantell.
Analysis
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act states that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for a labor organization, or its agents to restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act. Section 8(b)(1)(A), however, also says
that this provision “shall not impair the right of a labor organi-
zation to prescribe its own rules with respect to acquisition or
retention of membership.”
Thus, the initial question in this case is whether the Union
restrained or coerced Frank Mantell in the exercise of a Section
7 right. This in turn raises the question of whether Mantell
engaged in any activity protected by Section 7. Mantell’s Fa-
cebook posts concerned perceived unfairness affecting appren-
tices. Mantell was a journeyman, however, not an apprentice.
Section 7 provides that “employees shall have the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . .”

1 Mantell works full time as a firefighter for the city of Niagara
Falls. However, he also regularly acquires work through the Union’s
hiring hall as a laborer.
LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 91 5
(COUNCIL OF UTILITY CONTRACTORS, INC. AND VARIOUS OTHER EMPLOYERS)
(Emphasis added.)
One could argue that Mantell did not engage in protected ac-
tivity because the issuance of a journeyman’s book to Choolo-
kian did not affect him, or even if it did, his Facebook posts
only complained about the effect on apprentices.
Nevertheless, I find that Mantell’s Facebook posts were pro-
tected. First of all, issuing a journeyman’s book to someone
allegedly ineligible to receive one, affected Mantell in that one
more journeyman would arguably impact his opportunities for
employment. Moreover, as Judge Learned Hand pointed out in
NLRB v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolate Co., 130 F.2d
503, 505–506 (2d Cir. 1942), employees making common
cause with fellow employees are engaged in protected activity.
Even though the immediate quarrel may not concern them they
may be assured that if their “turn ever comes,” they will have
the support of those they are then helping.
I also reject Respondent Union’s assertion that Mantell for-
feited the protection of the Act by maliciously defaming the
Union and Business Manager Palladino. Nothing Mantell said
in his Facebook posts was maliciously and knowingly untrue,
MasTec Advance Technologies, 357 NLRB 103, 107 (2011).
The Union takes issue with the fact that Mantell characterized
the Union’s action as giving Choolokian “a gift.” I find that
has not been proven to be false despite the fact that Choolokian
may have paid for the journeyman’s book. Mantell’s use of the
term “gift” can reasonably be interpreted as arguing that
Choolokian was not entitled to a journeyman’s book—an asser-
tion that may or may not be true.2
The Union also argues that this case should be dismissed
pursuant to the Board’s decision in Office Employees Local 251
(Sandia National Laboratories), 331 NLRB 1417 (2000). In
that decision the Board held that it would no longer proscribe
intraunion discipline under Section 8(b)(1)(A) with does not
interfere with the employer-employee relationship or otherwise
contravenes a policy of the Act.
I conclude that removal of Mantell from the hiring hall’s out-
of-work list interferes with the employer-employee relationship
and thus violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). By removing him from its
out-of-work list, the Union deprived Mantell of employment
opportunities and deprived prospective employers of his ser-
vices. In Plasterers Local 121, 264 NLRB 192 (1982), albeit a
case predating Sandia, the Board found that a union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by rescinding a nonexclusive hiring hall
referral and refusing to refer an employee in the future. The
Union was retaliating against the employee in that case for
criticizing the business agent’s way of running the Union.3
The Board in Carpenters Local 370 (eastern Contractors
Assn.), 332 NLRB 174 (2000) held that a Union operating a
nonexclusive hiring hall owed no duty of fair representation to
a member. However, despite this, a union violates Section

2 Similarly, I find that Mantell did not forfeit the protections of the
Act by suggesting that the Union awarded Choolokian a journeyman’s
book because Choolokian promised benefits to the Union if he was
elected Mayor. There is no evidence in this record as to the reason the
Union allowed Choolokian to acquire a journeyman’s book.
3 A recent similar case, involving an exclusive hiring hall is Stage
Employees IATSE Local 15(SMG and the Freeman Cos. d/b/a Freeman
Decorating Services, 364 NLRB No. 89, slip op. at 22 ( 2016).
8(b)(1)(A) when it discriminates against a member for protect-
ed activity, Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City & Suburban
Delivery), 332 NLRB 870, 870 fn. 1 (2000); Teamsters Local
460 (Superior Asphalt), 300 NLRB 441 fn. 1 (1990).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent, Laborers Local Union Number 91, violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) by removing the Charging Party, Frank S. Man-
tell, from its out-of-work list between October 12 and Novem-
ber 19, 2015.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, Laborers Local Union No. 91, Niagara
Falls, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Removing employees from its out-of-work list in retalia-
tion for activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify Frank Mantell in writing that it will make em-
ployment referrals available to him without regard to his exer-
cise of Section 7 rights.
(b) Make Frank Mantell whole for any loss of earnings and
or other benefits suffered a result of the discrimination against
him.
(c) Compensate Frank Mantell for his search-for-work and
interim employment expenses regardless of whether those ex-
penses exceed his interim earnings. Search-for-work and inter-
im employment expenses shall be calculated separately from
taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New
Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide a reasonable place designated by the Board or
its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records,
including an electronic copy of such records if stored in elec-
tronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
hiring hall in Niagara Falls, New York, copies of the attached

4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as my email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customar-
ily communicates with its members by such means. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current members and employees who were members at any
time since October 12, 2015.
(f) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies
of the notice for physical and/or electronic posting by any em-
ployers to whom referrals were made between October 12, and
November 19, 2015, if willing, at all places or in the same
manner as notices to employees are customarily posted.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 7, 2016
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO 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
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with
your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT remove any of you from our out-of-work list in
retaliation for activity protected by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, including criticizing the Union or any of
its decisions.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL make Frank Mantell whole for any of loss earnings
or other benefits suffered as a result of our removing him from
our out-of-work list.

5 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
WE WILL compensate Frank Mantell for his search-for-work
and interim employment expenses regardless of whether those
expenses exceed his interim earnings.
WE WILL notify Frank Mantell in writing that we will make
employment referrals available to him without regard to his
exercise of Section 7 rights.
LABORERS LOCAL UNION NO. 91
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/03–CB–163940 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.