Laborers Local 83

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1973

205 N.L.R.B. 399 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LABORERS LOCAL 83
Laborers ' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 83 (Fry, Inc., and Custodis
Construction Company ) and Vernon Sims. Case 9-
CB-2285
August 9, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On April 20, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Well-
ington A. Gillis issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Laborers' International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 83,
Gallipolis, Ohio, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A. GILLIS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was tried before me on February 14, 1973, at Gallipolis,
Ohio, and is based upon a charge and an amended charge
filed on October 5 and November 6, 1972, respectively, by
Vernon Sims, an individual, upon the complaint issued on
December 4, 1972, and amended at the hearing, by the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter referred to as the Board, against Laborers' Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No.
83, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent or the Union,
alleging violations of Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (61 Stat. 136), and upon an answer timely filed by
the Respondent denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
All parties were represented by counsel, and were afford-
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether, on August 7, 1972,2 Lynkis Jackson, field
representative for Local 83, attempted to cause William
Carnes, project manager for Custodis Construction Co., to
lay off Vernon Sims, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
2. Whether, since the second week of September 1972,
Local 83 has caused or attempted to cause James Hazelrigg,
construction superintendent for Fry, Inc., to refuse to hire
Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe Hanna, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
1 The transcript, otherwise flawless and extremely well prepared, contains
two minor errors which I hereby correct. on p. 74, 1. 24, "cooperation" shall
read "corroboration", on p 155, 1 15, "along" shall read "alone."
2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein refer to the year 1972
399
ed full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, and to engage
in oral argument. Timely briefs were filed by counsel for the
General Counsel and for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case,' and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, and their demeanor on the witness
stand, and upon substantial, reliable evidence "considered
along with the consistency and inherent probability of testi-
mony" (Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474,
496), I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Fry, Inc., an Ohio corporation with its main office located
in Springfield, Ohio, is engaged in various states of the
United States in the building and construction industry as
a general contractor, particularly at Gallipolis, Ohio.
Custodis Construction Company, a New Jersey corpora-
tion with its main office located in Chicago, Illinois, is also
engaged in various states of the United States as a general
contractor in the building and construction industry, and
particularly at Cheshire, Ohio.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint, Fry, Inc., and Custodis, each had
a direct inflow of goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which had been purchased and caused to be
shipped to its construction sites in Ohio directly from points
located outside the State of Ohio. I find that Fry, Inc., and
Custodis Construction Company are employers as defined
in Section 2(2) of the Act, and are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
I find that Laborers' International Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Local No. 83, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
205 NLRB No. 77
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Facts
1. The August Custodis allegation
In July and August 1972, the Custodis Construction
Company was engaged in the Gavin Power Plant project at
Cheshire, Ohio, on Route 7 some 4 miles up the road from
Gallipolis. At a Local 83 union meeting held during the last
week of July, Business Agent Thurman Hughes approached
laborer Joseph Hanna and asked him if he wanted to go to
work for Custodis on the smokestack on the Gavin project.
Hanna, in reply, asked Hughes about Clyde Hatfield, who
was there also. Hughes told Hatfield, he, too, could go to
work on the project. At this point, young Vernon Sims,
21-year-old son-in-law of Hatfield, asked Hughes what
about going to work on the job also, to which Hughes re-
plied that they only needed two men and that he would have
to get his own job, stating further that he had just given him
a job the other day. On August 1, Hanna and Hatfield
reported for work at the Gavin Power Plant, and Sims went
with them.3 Sims spoke with Earl Kriebs, general foreman
of the night shift, who apparently had need for another
laborer, and put him to work also.
On August 7, a few days after these three men com-
menced work at Gavin, William Carnes, project manager,
was talking with Lynkis Jackson, field representative for the
Union, and in the process of ordering some laborers for the
job. At one point during the conversation, Jackson said to
Carnes, "do you know that you hired a man the other night
on the third shift that doesn't have a union book, and he
wasn 't sent out of the hall." Upon Jackson mentioning the
name of Sims, Carnes replied that he was not aware of this,
but that he would check on it 4
That night, apparently as the shift was about to go on, in
front of some 20 men, Knebs, a note in his hand, asked if
Vernon Sims were there. When Sims made known his pres-
ence , Kriebs stated that Lynkis Jackson had called and said
that Sims did not belong to the Union. At that, Sims pulled
out his union card and showed it to Kriebs. Kriebs told him
to go to work and to check into the office the next day.'
The following morning, August 8 , Sims, Hanna, and Hat-
field, all went by the office. Sims told Carnes that it was his
understanding that the Union said that he did not have a
union card. Sims then showed Carnes his union book, which
indicated that his dues were paid up. Carnes then told him
that he could work there as far as he was concerned and that
if anything were done about it, the Union would have to do
it. Approximately a week later, Carnes, in the process of
requesting referrals for the job, raised the matter with Jack-
son, stating to Jackson that he had told him that Sims did
3 These three men, all members in good standing of Local 83, were close
friends
° While Carnes was not too certain on exact dates as to Sims' employment
on this conversation , I found him to be a forthright and honest witness, from
whose testimony the above account is taken I do not credit Jackson 's testi-
mony that this conversation was limited to his inquiry as to "who did the
hiring "
5 Neither Hanna nor Hatfield corroborated Sims to the effect that Kriebs
added that Jackson said to lay him off Kriebs did not testify and therefore
Sims' testimony on this stands by itself Had Knebs made the statement,
however, I believe Hanna and Hatfield would have so testified I find that
this was not part of Knebs' statement to the assembled men
not ever have a book. Jackson's only reply was to the effect
that, "Well, he wasn't sent out of the union hall." 6
Conclusion
As to this incident, the amended complaint alleges, and
the General Counsel asserts, that Jackson unlawfully at-
tempted to cause the layoff of Sims. In support of its asser-
tion that Jackson was discriminatorily motivated in this
attempt, the General Counsel elicited testimony from Sims
indicating a run-in with Business Agent Hughes in late June
of 1972. On that occasion, Sims called Hughes, complaining
about getting only a 1-day job, and asking why it was that
other men were getting laid off jobs and being referred out
the next day. Hughes replied that if he did not keep his
mouth shut he would be sitting on his ass at home. Sims
further testified that after June, he called the Local 83 office
once a week asking to speak with Hughes or Jackson, each
time being told by the secretary that they did not have any
work for him.
Without regard to what prompted Jackson to make the
simple inquiry of Carnes as to whether he knew that he had
hired a man who did not have a union book and had not
been sent out by the Union, I am unable to construe this,
by itself, as a demand or even a request, that Carnes lay off
Sims.7 Carnes, himself, testified that he did not so construe
it. Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has failed
to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the
credible evidence the complaint allegation that the Respon-
dent attempted to cause Custodis Construction Company to
layoff Vernon Sims in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
2. The Fry, Inc., allegation
On August 16, 1972, James Hazelrigg, construction super-
intendent for Fry, Inc., for the Robbins and Myers project
in Gallipolis, Ohio, signed a "pre job conference" agree-
ment with Local 83. It is readily apparent from the record
that the events that followed in September concerning the
three laborers here involved, Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield
and Joe Hanna, and gave rise to the complaint allegation in
this regard, stem from a difference of opinion between Ha-
zelrigg and Jackson as to the intent, as well as substance, of
this agreement. Throughout this period, in one conversation
or another, it appears that from the beginning Jackson con-
tended that the prejob conference agreement constituted a
hiring hall agreement by which Hazelrigg agreed to hire
personnel only by calling the Union, whereas Hazelrigg
held to the position that the agreement was not a hiring hall
agreement but that it permitted the Company to hire with
the requirement that it then notify the Union. This bone of
contention at no time was resolved, not even, apparently, at
the time of the instant hearing.8
6 1 do not credit Jackson's denial that he had this subsequent conversation
with Carnes concerning Sims
7 While perhaps unimportant to the issue, and recognizing that Carnes
often requested laborers from the Union, the record does not reveal, one way
or the other, whether any referral agreement existed between Custodis and
Local 83
8 The preconference agreement itself was not offered in evidence, and
LABORERS LOCAL 83
In any event, on September 5, Sims, Hanna, and Hatfield
presented themselves at the Fry jobsite and asked Hazelrigg
if he were hiring laborers. Hazelrigg then told them that he
had no need for any at that moment, and asked them if they
belonged to the Local Union, advising that the Company
was a union contractor. Upon learning that all of them were
members of Local 83, Hazelrigg told them to check back,
that he eventually would be needing some men.
The following day, September 6, Hazelrigg called Jack-
son, saying that he was going to need more men. Shortly
Jackson went out to the jobsite, and Hazelrigg mentioned
to Jackson that Sims, Hanna, and Hatfield had been out
looking for work. Hazelrigg told Jackson that they were
Local 83 men, that he needed a man, and "asked him how
about these three men." Jackson replied that they were
working on the third shift at the Gavin plant job. Hazelrigg
asked Jackson why they were applying for work on his
project if they were already working, to which Jackson an-
swered that he did not know. Jackson then sent out another
man from the union Hall.
The following morning, September 7, Sims, Hanna, and
Hatfield showed up at the jobsite, and Hazelrigg told them
what Jackson had said. The three of them indicated that
they had quit the Gavin job 2 weeks earlier, Hatfield be-
cause he had been ill, and Hanna because his mother wor-
ried about his working on high towers and he was losing
sleep over it.9 At some point, one of the three told Hazelrigg
that the reason they were coming out to hisjob was because
Jackson was discriminating against them. Starting with this
conversation with the three men, and following this several
times during the next week, up until September 16, Hazel-
ngg indicated to the men that he had signed a preconference
agreement with the Union and there existed a question as
to whether this constituted a hiring hall agreement, that
Jackson had said that it was. Hazelrigg told the men that he
was going to have to check with his office in Springfield
On Monday, September 11, in need of some men, Hazel-
rigg talked with Jackson. Indicating that he would like to
have local area men, and aware that Sims, Hanna, and
Hatfield were from the Gallipolis area, Hazelrigg again
asked Jackson about these three men. Jackson replied, say-
ing "that I had agreed by this pre fob conference to call the
hall when I wanted a man, not to hire a man that was
coming in looking for work." A discussion followed con-
cerning the prejob conference, with Hazelrigg stating that
he did not recall that the prejob conference had constituted
a hiring hall agreement, but that he was not sure.10
therefore , just what it did provide is not known , nor actually made an issue
herein Hazelrigg, in a very limited testimony on the agreement, testified that
"the agreement is made between the Union and the local contractors And
there is a statement in there which I presume refers specifically to some clause
in the Taft-Hartley Act that says that after a man is employed the Union
must be notified And the man with some exceptions must join the Union
And that's the way I've always operated before Sometimes I got men from
the Hall and sometimes I got a man off the street-or `off the bank."'
9 The record reflects that, in fact, whereas all three commenced working
for Custodis on the Gavin Power Plant project on August 1, Hanna quit his
job there on August 24, Hatfield and Sims quit on August 25 and 30, re-
spectively, because they were ill, and never returned to their jobs They were
carried on the Custodis roll as employees, however, until replaced on Septem-
ber 7 and 8, respectively
ii) Strangely enough, at no time during these various conversations between
401
Hazelrigg later called his Springfield office and had the
payroll clerk locate a copy of the prejob conference agree-
ment and read it to him. Apparently even this did not an-
swer Hazelrigg's dilemma as to his obligations under the
agreement, for, on several occasions that week when one or
more of the three men showed up at the jobsite, Hazelrigg
told them that he did not know whether he had made a
hiring hall agreement, that he was checking it out with his
office. On one such occasion, according to Sims, when Sims
showed up alone and asked Hazelrigg if he were going to put
him to work, Hazelrigg replied that he did not know, that
Jackson had said that "we would cause problems on the
job," and that "one of the employees was a steward and had
been on strike for a week."
On September 14, Hazelngg called the union hall for
three more men, and talked with Hughes. He told Hughes
that he would like to have local area men, and asked him
again about these three men. Hughes replied that there had
been some problems, stating that he wanted to furnish men
who were satisfactory. Hazelrigg said that there had been
one young impressive Viet Nam veteran who had applied
for work and that he had sent him to the union hall to
register. Hazelrigg asked Hughes about him. Hughes told
Hazelngg to go ahead and call him if he wanted to, which
Hazelrigg did. As Hazelngg needed three men, Hughes then
sent out two other men of his choice. None of the three here
involved, Sims, Hanna, or Hatfield, was referred."
Several months later, on December 7, Hazelrigg called
the hall for men, and Sims and Hatfield were referred out.
They worked at Fry, Inc., for 10 days, at which point they
were laid off.
Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent
caused and attempted to cause Fry, Inc., to refuse to hire
Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe Hanna for reasons
other than the failure to tender dues and initiation fees in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. The Re-
spondent, generally, denies the charge, taking the position
that both before, and since, the Union has referred these
men to a number of jobs.
Before treating the precise issue here, the record does in
fact reveal, without regard to the duration of the jobs or
other details, that Hanna and Hatfield were referred to a
number of construction jobs as early as May and again in
the fall of 1972. Thus, Hanna was referred on June 5 to
Locks Construction, on August 1 to Custodis, on December
13 to Greenley's. Hatfield was referred on May 2 to Ben
Cookson, August 1 to Custodis, October 10 to Bleyley, Oc-
tober 17 to Locks Construction, December 7 to Fry, Inc.,
and, after a layoff, to Greenley's. Sims was also referred to
Fry, Inc., on December 7. Notwithstanding the fact that
these referrals, or attempts at referrals, support the
Hazelrigg and Jackson, or at any other time for that matter, does it appear
that either had a copy of the prejob conference agreement in dispute Hazel-
rigg had sent his copy to the company office in Springfield. There is no
ex?lanation advanced for Jackson's not having a copy
i The Viet Nam veteran had not been a Local 83 member, but, upon being
informed by Hazelrigg that it was a union job, he went down to the union
hall and registered
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's assertion in this regard, I find that such is not
relevant to the issue raised, specifically, whether the Re-
spondent caused or attempted to cause Fry, Inc., to refuse
to hire Sims, Hatfield, or Hanna between September 6 and
16.12
The General Counsel points to background evidence of
alleged hostility on the part of Hughes towards Hatfield,
and in turn, his buddies by association, to provide the discri-
minatory motivation on the part of Local 83's Hughes and
Jackson. Acknowledging the existence of a couple of inci-
dents in 1971 and as late as March 1972, reflecting a degree
of animosity between Hughes and Hatfield, a former union
steward under Hughes, whether or not this played a part in
the conduct of Hughes and Jackson concerning the Fry
matter, I find is not necessary to determine. The sole and
precise issue presented by the pleadings is whether Local 83
caused Hazelrigg to not hire these three members in good
standing of the Union. I find that it did.
It is undisputed that Sims, Hanna, and Hatfield, on a
number of occasions between September 6 and 16, present-
ed themselves at the Fry jobsite, that they asked to be put
to work, that Hazelrigg had openings and was ready to put
them to work and wanted to put them to work, and that the
only reason he did not was solely because Jackson and
Hughes insisted that under the prejob conference agreement
he had agreed to hire only through the union hall. Both
Jackson and Hughes were well aware that these men wanted
to work, that at least after September 8, were no longer
employed elsewhere, and that Hazelrigg wanted to give
them jobs. While both Hughes and Jackson, at no point,
told Hazelngg in so many words that he could not hire these
men, each time when Hazelngg asked whether he could put
these men to work Jackson told Hazelrigg that, by signing
the agreement, he did not have the right to hire men at the
jobsite as he had obligated himself to call the Union for
laborers. Thus, but for the fact that the union officials insist-
ed on this position throughout the discussions with Hazel-
rigg, the latter would have hired all three. In view of the
above, it follows that during this period the Union, through
its officials Hughes and Jackson, did in fact cause Fry, Inc.,
to not hire Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe Hanna.
The question then arises as to whether the Respondent, in
causing Fry, Inc., to not hire the men, may rely upon its
assertion that the Company had executed a prejob confer-
ence agreement containing an alleged hiring hall provision
obligating it to call the Union for men. Without attempting
to decide the legal import of such an agreement, I find that,
the General Counsel, having proved the "cause and attempt
to cause," it was incumbent upon the Respondent to come
forward with affirmative evidence to justify its conduct,
specifically, it had the burden of putting into evidence the
preconference agreement. This it did not do.
Accordingly, under these circumstances, I find that the
Respondent, Local 83, between September 6 and 16, 1972,
caused and attempted to cause Fry, Inc., to refuse to hire
Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe Hanna, in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
12 As asserted by the General Counsel, referrals after the filing of the unfair
labor practice charge herein should not exonerate the Union for any unlawful
conduct that might have occurred poor thereto.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operation of Custo-
dis Construction Company and Fry, Inc., as set forth in
section I, above, have a close, intimate and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 83, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Custodis Construction Company and Fry, Inc., are
employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By causing, and attempting to cause, Fry, Inc., to un-
lawfully refuse to hire Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe
Hanna between September 6 and 16, 1972, the Respondent
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully
caused Fry, Inc., to refuse to hire Vernon Sims, Clyde Hat-
field, and Joe Hanna, between September 6 and 16, 1972,
it is recommended that Respondent make these three indi-
viduals whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as
a result of its discrimination against them by making pay-
ment to them of a sum of money plus interest, equal to that
which they would have earned but for the Respondent's
discrimination against them, in accordance with the princi-
ples enunciated by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
Upon the foregoing facts, conclusions of law, and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 13
The Respondent, Laborers' International Union of North
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
LABORERS LOCAL 83
America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 83, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of Fry, Inc., or any
other employer, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
(b) unlawtuliy causing and attempting to cause Fry,
Inc., to refuse to hire Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe
Hanna, or any other employee, in violation of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe
Hanna for any losses in pay they may have sustained as a
result of the Respondent's discrimination against them,
computing the amount due in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."'
(b) Notify immediately Fry, Inc., and Vernon Sims,
Clyde Hatfield, and Joe Hanna that it has no objection to
the Company employing these individuals.
(c) Post at its business offices in Portsmouth, Ohio, its
meeting hall, and all other places where notices to members
are customarily posted, a copy of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of the notice on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 9, shall, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, be posted by it, as aforesaid, immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained for at least 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Promptly, upon receipt of copies of said notice from
the Regional Director, return to him signed copies for post-
ing by Fry, Inc., it being willing, at the Company's Spring-
field, Ohio office, and any other jobsite located in the
Gallipolis, Ohio, area.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
14 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board
403
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein be
dismissed insofar as it alleges any violation of the Act not
specifically found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Fry, Inc., to
refuse to hire Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe
Hanna, or any other employee, in violation of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Fry,
Inc., or of any other employer, in violation of Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
WE WILL pay Vernon Sims, Clyde Hatfield, and Joe
Hanna any monies they may have lost as a result of
their not having been hired by Fry, Inc., between Sep-
tember 6 and 16, 1972.
WE WILL notify, in writing, Fry, Inc., and Vernon
Sims, Clyde Hatfield and Joe Hanna that we have no
objection to the employment by Fry, Inc., of these
three individuals.
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL No 83
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room
2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
513-684-3686.