Local 38, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 18, 2015

07-CB-128512 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 18, 2015)

JD–15–15
Pontiac, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
LOCAL 38, INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL
STAGE EMPLOYEES, MOVING PICTURE TECHNICIANS,
ARTISTS AND ALLIED CRAFTS OF THE UNITED STATES,
ITS TERRITORIES AND CANADA (IATSE), AFL-CIO
(CROWN CITY PICTURES, INC.)
and Case 7-CB-128512
RALPH BICKFORD, AN INDIVIDUAL
Donna M. Nixon, ESQ.,
for the General Counsel
Christopher Legghio, ESQ., and
Alidz Oshagan, ESQ., of Royal Oak, Michigan
for the Respondent Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eric M. Fine, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit, Michigan on
December 4 and 5, 2014.1 The charge and amended charge were filed on May 12 and June
30, respectively, by Ralph Bickford against Local 38, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its
Territories and Canada (IATSE), AFL-CIO (Local 38 or the Union). The complaint is combined
with a compliance specification, as amended, pertaining to Bickford. The complaint alleges that
on May 13, Local 38 requested that Crown City Pictures, Inc., (the Employer) layoff Bickford
because Bickford was not a member of Local 38, and that by this conduct Local 38 attempted to
cause and caused the Employer to discriminate against Bickford in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act and therefore Local 38 violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.

1 All dates are 2014 unless otherwise specified.
JD–15–15
2

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Local 38, I make the following:2
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Jurisdiction
Crown City Pictures, Inc., (the Employer) a corporation, with an office and place of 10
business in Burbank, California, has been engaged in the production of motion pictures,
including the production of the film “Batman vs. Superman,“ in and around Pontiac, Michigan
(the Pontiac worksite). During the calendar year ending December 31, 2013, the Employer, in
conducting the described business operations, purchased and received at its Pontiac worksite
goods valued in excess of $50,000, directly from points located outside the state of Michigan. 15
Local 38 admits and I find the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that Local 38 is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices20
A. The General Counsel’s witnesses
1. Ralph Bickford’s testimony
25
Bickford testified he does lighting and is an electrician for movies, television, and
commercials. Bickford signed an application to become a member of Local 38 in August
2001, and he listed a Hazel Park, Michigan address on the application. On December 5,
2007, Bickford was issued a letter from Local 38 stating he was “expelled for non-payment of
dues.” The amount Local 38 stated he owed was $154.00, which included $94 for dues, a 30
$10 late fee, and a $50 reinstatement fine. Concerning his being expelled from Local 38,
Bickford testified “I ran on some hard times and I didn’t pay the dues, so I was expelled from
the Union.” Bickford testified he has since paid his back dues to Local 38, and he thought he
paid the dues in June 2010. Bickford testified he paid the back dues in cash at Local 38’s office,
and that he may have received a receipt, but he did not keep it. Bickford testified he did not 35
work between 2010 and 2014 in Detroit under a Local 38 contract.
Local 38’s member work history for Bickford shows he had earnings in each of the
years 2002 to 2010, although he only earned $6,054.00 in 2007 and $2,911.86 in 2008.
Bickford’s earnings increased in 2009 and 2010. Local 38’s work records for Bickford show 40
the last time he worked, pursuant to a Local 38 contract, prior to the current dispute was in
September 2010. Bickford testified he worked on the jobs listed for him in Local 38’s work

2 In making the findings, I have considered the witnesses’ demeanor, the content of their
testimony, and the inherent probabilities of the record as a whole. In certain instances, I have
credited some but not all of what a witness said. See NLRB v. Universal Camera Corporation,
179 F. 2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2), reversed on other grounds 340 U.S. 474 (1951). All testimony and
evidence has been considered. If certain testimony or evidence is not mentioned it is because it
is cumulative of the credited evidence, not credited, or not essential to the findings herein.
Further discussion of the witnesses’ credibility is set forth below.
JD–15–15
3
history including productions for “Red Dawn” and “Game of Death.” He testified that Local 38
did not refer him to those jobs. Rather, he received them through people he knew who worked
on them. Bickford testified he was paying dues to local 38 at the time he worked on those jobs.
Bickford testified that every job he worked on where there is a contract with Local 38 they
automatically take three percent out of his pay for dues. Bickford testified he worked from 2007 5
through 2010 in the Detroit area on movies and other jobs. Bickford testified that between 2007
when he was expelled from Local 38 and 2010, he worked at least two jobs where the Union
referred him to the job, and this was in 2008.
Bickford submitted an application to Local 209, an Ohio Local of IATSE, on 10
September 20, 2011. In the notarized application, Bickford stated he resided at a listed Ohio
address and he had been a resident of Springfield, Ohio for one year. However, at the trial,
Bickford testified he has never been an Ohio resident. When asked if he was telling the truth
when he filled out the application as to his Springfield, Ohio address, Bickford testified, “No, I
wasn’t.” Bickford admitted he “lied” as to his Ohio residency stating he was told he had to 15
become a member of Local 209 after he had traveled to the job in Ohio from Las Vegas, which
is why he listed the Ohio residence. Bickford testified he was only a member of Local 209 for
three months in 2011, in that he only paid a quarter of the membership. Bickford testified that
from 2011 to 2014 he had no union affiliation.
20
Bickford submitted an application for membership to IATSE Local 720 located in Las
Vegas, Nevada, which was signed by Bickford on December 6, 2013, wherein he stated he
was residing at a listed Boulder City, Nevada address and he had been a resident of Boulder
City for 4 years. Bickford testified he is a member in good standing of Local 720, and he has
been a member since January 1, 2014. Bickford testified that when you were a member of the 25
union you have to pay quarterly stamps to the local union. He testified the stamp means your
dues are current, you are up to date with your payments to the International, and you are in
good standing with the International.
When asked at the trial where he lives, Bickford testified he has a residence in30
Madison Heights, Michigan, and a residence in Boulder City, Nevada, which is a suburb of Las
Vegas. Bickford was issued a Michigan state driver’s license effective September 6, 2011,
with an October 20, 2015, expiration date. The driver’s license reflects that Bickford has a
Madison Heights, Michigan address. Bickford testified he does not own a home in Nevada or
in Michigan. He testified the place where he stays in Madison Heights, Michigan is in his 35
mother’s name. Bickford testified he did not pay rent when staying in his mother’s home, but he
splits the property tax with his mother for the house, and he also pays part of the utilities even
when he is not living there. Bickford testified he first obtained a place in Las Vegas in 2006, and
he has rented a place in Boulder City, Nevada since 2008. Bickford testified that both his and
his wife’s cell numbers have Las Vegas area codes. Bickford testified his wife lives with him in 40
Nevada when they are there and in Michigan when they are there. He testified his wife was not
employed at the time of his testimony. Bickford testified his wife has been employed in Nevada
and he thought the last time was in May 2014. Bickford testified that his wife has been
employed on and off for four years at the same place in Nevada. Bickford testified he has a
motor vehicle registered in his name in Michigan, and his wife also has a vehicle registered in 45
her name in Michigan. Bickford testified his wife has a Michigan driver’s license.
Bickford testified that between 2010 and 2014 he worked some jobs in Las Vegas,
Nevada, and he also worked in Detroit but not in any union production. Bickford testified
that between 2010 and 2014 he worked in the Detroit area for a couple of different production50
companies. Bickford testified he worked for Roger Haggart, who does production work.
JD–15–15
4
Bickford could not recall any other employers he worked for in Detroit during that period.
Bickford testified, “I can’t recall specifics, but I did have two or three jobs a year doing various
commercials and training films with different – different companies in Michigan.” Bickford
testified that between November 2011 and December 2012, he was a partner in a medical
marijuana business in Michigan. Bickford testified that during the period 2010 to 2014 in Las 5
Vegas he worked at The Sands Convention Center, the employer being SAE Productions.
Bickford testified there were probably 10 or 15 other jobs in Las Vegas, but he could not recall
the names of the production companies. Bickford testified that between 2010 and 2014 he
was living in Las Vegas sometimes. However, Bickford testified Michigan is the place where
he spends most of his time, and between 2010 and 2014 he spent most of his time in 10
Michigan. He testified that between 2010 and 2014, he had some jobs in Las Vegas and he
worked about 100 days there during that period, and he probably worked 20 days in Michigan
between 2010 and 2014.
Bickford testified he worked on the movie “Batman vs. Superman,“ known for production 15
purposes under the code name Sage & Milo. Bickford testified the employer is Crown City
Pictures, Inc. which is a subsidiary of Warner Brothers. Bickford explained a code name is
given to a movie to keep the real name from the public during production. Bickford testified the
location where he worked was Pontiac, Michigan. Bickford worked there for a week for the
week ending May 2, 2014. Bickford was not referred to Sage & Milo by Local 38. 20
Bickford learned of Sage and Milo from a contact he had in Las Vegas, who gave
Bickford the phone number of the Best Boy Dan Jones for the picture. Bickford called Jones in
February 2014 about a job. At that time, Jones was in Los Angeles and Bickford was in
Nevada. Bickford testified the best boy is the second person in charge of hiring. Bickford 25
testified he also had a conversation with Jones in April when Jones told Bickford that when it
came time for hiring with Sage & Milo that Bickford would have to have a Michigan driver’s
license and address. Bickford told Jones that he had a Michigan driver’s license and a Michigan
residence. Bickford testified that in April 2014 he resided in Michigan, and that he has resided in
Michigan all of his life. He testified he has also resided in Nevada part-time on and off since 30
2006. He testified that when the weather is poor he goes to Nevada, but he stays in Michigan
most of the time. He testified he defines residency as where he stays most of the time. He
testified he has never been a resident of any other place but Michigan.
Bickford testified Michael Conner was hired as the fixture foreman for the Sage & Milo35
production. Bickford spoke to Conner during the first week of April 2014. Bickford testified
Conner stated he would love to have Bickford work on the picture, as they had worked together
in the past, and he had known Conner for over 20 years. Bickford testified Conner said he was
not able to hire at that time, and Conner told Bickford to call in a week or so. Bickford called, as
requested, but again Conner was not ready to hire. Bickford testified that, while he was having 40
these pre-hire discussions with Conner, Conner was aware that Bickford was in Nevada.
Bickford testified the Conner never brought up a residency requirement with him.
Bickford testified he had another conversation with Conner in the last week of April and
Bickford was told that production for the movie was likely to be at least 6 to 9 months. During 45
the call, Conner offered and Bickford accepted the job of working on fixtures for the film. Conner
said they would be starting on Monday morning, which was April 28. Bickford stated he had
scheduled a vacation for May 3 to May 9. Bickford testified Conner approved the vacation.
Bickford testified, “I had stated to Mike Conner that’s I was good with the union because I was
– I was under the impression as long as I was a member in good standing with any IATSE50
local, that working would not be a problem.” Bickford testified that when he said to Conner
JD–15–15
5
that he was good with the union Bickford did not say which union and Conner did not ask.
Bickford testified at the time of this conversation with Conner, Bickford was in Boulder City,
Nevada. When he was hired Bickford gathered his things and drove his truck from Nevada to
Detroit. Bickford testified that before he began his employment at Sage & Milo he told Conner
that Bickford was going to come to Michigan and live with his mother. Bickford testified Conner 5
asked him that question. Bickford testified Conner knew Bickford’s mother and Conner knew
Bickford was renting a house in Las Vegas.
Bickford began work at Sage & Milo on April 28, and he filled out at packet of documents
for the Employer on that date. On the initial page of the documents, Bickford reported his 10
mailing address to be located in Madison Heights, Michigan and that his “W2 address” was in
Boulder City, Nevada. Bickford listed the Michigan address on the I-9 form. An Employer
verification form on the packet showed that Bickford has a Michigan driver’s license with a 2015
expiration date. As part of the packet, Bickford signed a “Retroactive Payroll Deduction Consent
Form IATSE Local 38” stating effective immediately, Bickford authorized the Employer on behalf 15
of Local 38 to deduct from and forward to Local 38 three percent of all Bickford’s gross wages
from his date of hire.3 As part of the packet, Bickford also signed a “State of Michigan
Declaration of Residency” form in which Bickford certified that the Madison Heights, Michigan
address was his permanent residence. Bickford answered yes on the form to the question of
whether he was a permanent resident of Michigan. The form stated, “To be a resident of20
Michigan, you must be domiciled in Michigan. Your domicile is your permanent home; it is
the place to which you intend to return after any temporary absence. You have only one
domicile.” At the trial, Bickford testified that his permanent residence is Madison Heights,
Michigan, but he requested the Employer send his W2 form to the Nevada address because in
February he spends his time in Nevada due to the warmer weather. On the forms, Bickford 25
listed his wife as his emergency contact and that she was at the Boulder City, Nevada
address. He testified that was where his wife was located at the time. Bickford testified he
has two residences, one in Boulder City, Nevada, and that his primary residence is in
Madison Heights, Michigan.
30
Bickford testified that on Friday, May 2, around 10 to 10:30 a.m., Conner called Bickford
and said Conner had just gotten off the phone with Local 38 Business Representative Calvin
Hazelbaker. Conner said Hazelbaker had chewed Conner out because Conner hired Bickford
in the position of fixtures, and Conner said to Bickford that, “I thought that you said that you
were okay with the union? “ Bickford responded that he was okay with the union. However, 35
Conner replied that Hazelbaker said Bickford was not a member. Bickford said he never said he
was a member of Local 38, that he was a member of Local 720. Bickford asked Conner if he
wanted Bickford to call Hazelbaker, and Conner said he thought Bickford should call him.
On May 2, following his conversation with Conner, Bickford called Hazelbaker at around 40
10:30 a.m. Bickford testified he asked Hazelbaker “what’s the deal?” Hazelbaker told Bickford
that if Bickford was coming into a home local that Bickford should have called Hazelbaker first
to get permission to work on the movie. Hazelbaker said he had other members who were not
working and they should be hired first. Bickford asked Hazelbaker what Bickford could do to
make it right. He testified Hazelbaker said that Bickford owed back dues and Bickford replied 45
that he paid those back dues. Hazelbaker said he would have Hazelbaker’s secretary Michele

3 Bickford testified the payroll deduction consent form was presented to him by the
Employer, not Local 38. When asked if someone told him he had to sign a dues checkoff form
for this job, Bickford testified “I probably just did it. I did it just because that's how I -- that's
what I've always done.”
JD–15–15
6
send a letter to the International to see whether Bickford owed any back dues to Local 38.
Bickford testified he said that was fine but asked what they were going to do in the meantime.
Hazelbaker said they should figure out what was going to happen with the dues. Hazelbaker
said they will wait for a letter from the International to which Bickford said all right. Bickford
testified that as far as he knew that was all that was going to happen that day. He testified 5
that at that point the issue was back dues. Bickford later testified that in his first conversation
with Hazelbaker on May 2, Hazelbaker asked if Bickford had a driver’s license and Hazelbaker
said one of the requirements for this is a residence and a driver’s license in Michigan, and
Bickford said he had both of those. Bickford testified Hazelbaker said he had not
heard from Bickford in years and he did not know Bickford was still in the area. 10
Bickford said when he was not receiving work from Local 38, he was not aware that he
had to keep Local 38 informed of where he lived. Bickford stated in his pre-hearing
affidavit that, “Cal also said he didn’t even think I was in town anymore, and one of the issues
was that I had to be a resident of Michigan.”
15
Bickford testified he had a second conversation with Conner on May 2. Bickford
testified, “I guess after lunch Mike Conner had had another conversation with Cal, and I guess
Cal read him the riot act about having me –“ Bickford testified that Conner said to him that
there was an issue about Bickford being employed there because Bickford was not a member
and members of Local 38, were not working yet. Bickford testified that Conner said he spoke 20
to Hazelbaker about it. Bickford testified that Conner was worried about his reputation with
Local 38; and Bickford told Conner that Bickford would call Hazelbaker and see what Bickford
could work out.
Bickford testified he made two attempts to call Hazelbaker and Bickford left messages 25
with Michele. Bickford testified Hazelbaker called Bickford back around 4:30 p.m. on May 2.
Bickford told Hazelbaker that if Bickford needed to get a dual card, that Bickford would be
happy to apply for membership with Local 38. Bickford testified Hazelbaker said they would
see what happens with the dues first concerning the letter Local 38 was sending to the
International. Bickford told Hazelbaker that Bickford was worried about Conner’s reputation and 30
Bickford asked if Conner was ok. Hazelbaker said Conner was ok. Hazelbaker stated he had
already said what he needed to say to Conner. Bickford testified he spoke to Hazelbaker about
other jobs he had done in Michigan. Bickford testified he said there was never a problem
when he came in and worked on Real Steel and there was never a problem with any of the
movies that Bickford worked on before Hazelbaker was the business representative. Bickford 35
testified he said he did not know why when he came there to work before when he was not a
member of any union there was no problem, and now that he was a member of the Las Vegas
local there was a problem with him coming in. Bickford said he thought this was getting way
out of proportion.
40
Bickford testified that, following his call with Hazelbaker, Bickford went on his scheduled
vacation. On May 6, in the afternoon, Bickford received a text message on his phone from
Conner. The text message from Conner reads as follows:
We have had a busy day. Ralph my gut is wrenching. Yesterday I went down to talk to45
Cal face to face. I wanted to face not handling the situation correctly. Cal’s version of
‘we’re good’ is you settle up, then we can use you if and when we need to bring
people in from out of town. Not starting back in with us on Monday. He still has local
people calling and asking if they can get on the show. All these points he was making I
had to agree with. I have not answered your calls because I have been trying to face50
telling you that I have to make this right. That’s what Cal expects. This has really
JD–15–15
7
been bringing me down. I don’t want to hurt my friend, but we didn’t handle it the
right way. I’m sorry.
Bickford testified that, after he received the text message, he tried to call Conner. He
testified he eventually reached him on May 6 or 7 and Conner “basically told me that he had to5
let me go and that I was not able to – I was not able to come back, you know, on Monday like I
had planned.” Bickford testified Conner said Bickford “wouldn’t be coming back.” Bickford
testified Conner stated Hazelbaker told him that he had to bring in the local guys first, and if
there was anything left over after everybody in the Union was working, then Bickford might be
able to get in on the movie. Upon clarification, Bickford testified that, during the call, Conner 10
used the term “local guys.” Bickford testified the Conner did not use the word residents, and he
did not use the word union. Bickford testified Conner did not talk to him about residency.
Bickford testified Conner hired and fired him, and that no one from the Employer commented
on his job performance.
15
Bickford testified he was paid for the week he worked at Sage and Milo as a local
resident, not as a distant hire. Bickford testified he was not a distant hire. He also testified
Conner never said to him there is a problem because Bickford was a distant hire. Bickford
testified he was not aware of whether the IATSE constitution has any requirements related to
going to working in the area of another IATSE local. Bickford testified he did not return to 20
work for Sage & Milo in May 2014.
Bickford identified an email he received from Conner on July 8. Bickford testified he did
not speak to Conner about the email. Bickford testified that, after he received the email,
Bickford had conversations with attorney Steve Carroll from Warner Brothers Pictures about a 25
reinstatement offer from the Employer. The email from Conner reads as follows:
Ralph,
This is absolutely the worst work situation I have ever been in.
Whatever solution comes to the situation, I do not know anyone involved that I will not 30
either be in trouble with or have caused trouble for. That list includes You, Local 38, The
Rigging Electric Dept., The Set Decorating Dept., Local 38 legal representatives,
National Labor Relations, Crown City Pictures, and Warner Bros. Labor Relations.
They have all been in contact with me on, this matter. I have been interviewed and
documented, even given the opportunity to check the accuracy of what is written. Each 35
step of the way points out that I did things improperly and that I would ultimately be held
accountable. When I was confronted with my misunderstanding of your status, you
apologized to me, and told me the last thing you wanted was for me to get in trouble. I
soon realized that my conversations with others were very different than your
conversations with others and that the focus of wrong doing or not following procedures 40
was on me. I had a strong sense of what was expected of me and found myself in a
lose lose situation. We discussed it and you said you would walk if I was going to get in
trouble over this. Then there was the appearance that everything was ok but I never had
that sense of comfort, ever. Finally came the very loose agreement that you would
leave. I will go further to say that if they need to say you we’re let go then that rides on 45
me. Nobody told me to fire you.
I hope you realize how badly I felt about the situation. After thinking about it more,
you said there were actions you could take but would not because I was involved,
because of our friendship. Then came National Labor Relations and Local 38 legal to
speak with me. Now I certainly was involved and feeling very much in trouble. Maybe 50
that was not your intention but you were now taking action and that really troubled me
JD–15–15
8
more and more. Being contacted over and over during the day. Pointing out more of
how I should have handled the situation but didn’t. And on a personal level adding a lot
of stress to my job and dissolving whatever friendship remained between us.
Yesterday National Labor Relations wanted my help on who to talk to in production. I
had to explain a little of how the movie industry is structured, then I called the production 5
office myself and they had me talk to the production supervisor, who further told me what
I should have done and how I should have handled the situation. Then he told me he
had no knowledge of the situation so could not talk to NLRB and he gave me a contact
and number for Warner Bros. Labor Relations that I passed on to NLRB. At the end of
the day, I was contacted and told that we had to find a spot for you. I am sure Warner 10
Bros. would rather pay you to work than to pay out some settlement.
I then talked to Rigging Electric about the current situation and what Warner Bros.
said. I have been working with the same three guys, I like all of them, and they all seem
pretty happy working for me and that is what is allotted to me. I would not think it right to
displace any of them. Also, thinking back, none of them had the expectation to work for 15
me. I have also had two members contact me recently about being available. That sort
of takes me all the way back to the beginning. Shouldn’t they be given the next
opportunity. Rigging Electric said they can find you a spot but would be unsure of the
duration, I admitted to them that I would not feel comfortable working with you. This
whole thing is not sitting well with me, my self image, my choices, and our friendship. 20
Coming back, we would both be surrounded by a lot of WTFs, especially after I’ve
already had to try to explain why you aren’t here anymore.
Rigging Electric, suggested I contact you...
I did need to, to say some of these things and we are wondering what you would like
to get out of the situation. You are not obligated to say anything but I welcome a 25
response to know what you are thinking and if the repercussions are what you expected:
I only ask that you respond in writing just as I have been held accountable for what has
happened and what I state. I’m not ready for a phone conversation. This is bringing me
down more and more as it develops I’m sorry to say.
Mike Conner30
2. Michael Conner’s testimony
Conner has been a lighting technician for about 25 years. He works for different
employers in the motion picture and television industry. Conner is a member of Local 38, and 35
has been such for 13 years. Conner testified he was working for Crown City Pictures, a
production company formed by Warner Brothers, on a movie using the code name Sage & Milo.
Conner began working on the movie on April 4 and he testified he was just finishing up at the
time of his testimony on December 4. Conner testified this is a major motion picture and it
was a good opportunity for most people working in the production field to work on this picture. 40
Conner worked there as a department head and had the title of fixture foreman.
Conner testified he had known Bickford for about 20 years. Conner spoke with
Bickford in mid to late March in that Bickford called looking for work for the Sage & Milo
production. Conner testified he had several conversations with Bickford about the show prior 45
to Bickford starting to work there. Conner testified that, during their second conversation,
Conner explained to Bickford that a lot of people were interested in working in the fixtures
department and it was not a certain opportunity for Bickford. Conner testified Bickford was
willing to come and live with his mother in Michigan for the duration of his employment. Conner
testified that Bickford had a Michigan driver’s license, and Bickford also told Conner that 50
Bickford was good with the union. Conner testified Bickford was in Las Vegas at the time of this
JD–15–15
9
phone call. Conner testified that following this call he had other conversations with Bickford and
that around a week or less before Bickford started working for the Employer, Conner informed
Bickford that he was hired. Conner testified Bickford began work for the Employer on April 28.
Conner testified that he had two other hires starting on that date and they were both Local 38
members. Conner testified that, at the time Bickford started, Conner knew Bickford was going 5
to take a pre-planned Florida vacation from May 5 to May 9. Conner approved the vacation.
Conner testified that on Friday morning, May 2, which was at the end of Bickford’s first
week of work, Conner received a call that went to voice mail from Local 38 Business
Representative Calvin Hazelbaker. The message was for Conner to call Hazelbaker as soon as 10
possible. Conner returned the call on May 2. Conner testified that, during his call with
Hazelbaker, “Cal wanted to know why I had hired off roster, which surprised me because I
thought when Ralph had told me he was current with the union, that he meant Local 38 in
Detroit.” Conner told Hazelbaker that when Bickford had told Conner that Bickford was good
with the union, Conner thought that Bickford meant Local 38. Conner testified 15
Hazelbaker told Conner that Hazelbaker thought Bickford owed Local 38 money and Hazelbaker
“seemed pretty upset that I had hired this guy.” Conner testified that Hazelbaker “said that he
also had people that were still calling looking for work on the show and that, you know, that I
should've checked to make sure that Ralph was on the roster, which I had not done.” When
asked what roster Hazelbaker was talking about Conner testified, “It's a member roster of20
people that are available or that have current status with Local 38 that are members and
would be available to work.” Conner testified that during this conversation he thought
Hazelbaker said he wanted to check to see how much Bickford owed. Conner testified “so I
think we actually kind of paused our conversation and then spoke again after he found out,
you know, what that amount was or whether he did indeed owe money.” Conner testified that 25
during this call Hazelbaker said, “do we need to have a Teamster have an accident?” Conner
testified “it was said in a joking way, but it's something that stuck in my head as to why I acted
the way I did as result.”4 Conner testified that he and Hazelbaker discussed that when
Bickford left Michigan and Local 38 to go to Las Vegas that Bickford left on bad terms.
30
Conner testified that he had two calls with Hazelbaker that morning. Conner testified
that, during one of the calls, he was almost certain Hazelbaker asked what Bickford’s
intentions were and Conner informed Hazelbaker that Bickford had a Michigan driver’s license.
Conner testified that Bickford’s residence must have been discussed with Hazelbaker, but he did
not recall whether the discussion took place in the first or second call. Conner did not testify to a 35
certainty that Bickford’s residence was discussed, rather he testified “I think it was.” Conner
testified Bickford’s residency was not the focus of the conversation.
Conner testified that, after his first conversation with Hazelbaker on May 2, Conner
spoke to Bickford. Conner testified he confronted Bickford on the fact that Bickford had told 40
Conner that Bickford was good with the union, and now Local 38 was telling Conner that
Bickford was not current with his membership, that he owed money, and that this had put
Conner in a bad situation. Conner testified this was because Conner hired Bickford under the
assumption that Bickford’s Local 38 membership was good even though Bickford was coming

4 Conner testified he interpreted Hazelbaker’s Teamster remark as a joke, “but I also felt the
message of what I thought it meant.” Conner testified, “I thought there was a message to it. I
thought it was said jokingly with a message.” He testified, “it’s just part of why I felt I had done
something wrong.” Conner testified he did not take the remark as meaning if he did not do
something with Bickford that something bad would happen, but the remark affirmed
Hazelbaker’s statement that Conner had done something wrong by hiring off roster.
JD–15–15
10
from out of town. Conner testified, “I didn't feel he was being dishonest. I just, you know,
suddenly we had this, you know, I had misunderstood what he meant --and would have
treated the situation different.” Conner testified Bickford said the last thing he wanted to do
was to get Conner in trouble. Bickford said if it was going to get Conner in trouble Bickford
would walk away from the job. Bickford said he would call Hazelbaker. Conner testified that 5
Bickford did call Hazelbaker, and after placing the call Bickford acted like all he needed to do
was pay the money owed and everything would be good. However, Conner testified that
based on his discussions with Hazelbaker that Conner thought things were not good that what
Conner had done was wrong and that Conner needed to fix the situation. When asked what he
thought he had done wrong, Conner testified pertaining to Bickford , “Hiring him in front of 3810
members.”
As set forth above, Conner testified he spoke to Hazelbaker a second time on May 2,
and he was not sure who initiated the call. Conner testified the conversation was similar to the
first call in that he was told he should have checked the roster, that he should have verified15
whether or not Bickford was a member. He testified “we basically went through a lot of the
same things.” Conner testified that, on May 2, he indicated to Bickford that things did not
seem right. Conner testified that Bickford said he would call Hazelbaker a second time.
Conner testified Bickford later came up to Conner while he was in a meeting, and Bickford gave
Conner “a thumbs up like everything was okay, and just said, we're good.” Conner testified he 20
felt he was trapped in that he could not speak with Bickford but Bickford was giving him a
thumbs up, while Bickford was leaving for the day and going on vacation.
Conner testified he felt uneasy and on Monday, May 5, Conner went to see Hazelbaker
at the union office. Conner testified, “We talked a little bit more in detail of what some of the25
formalities would be as far as somebody coming in from out of town, things that I should have
done, calling to check the roster, but also calling to declare that somebody is coming from out
of town to work, which is something either I should have done or something Ralph should
have done, or even possibly had his BA call Cal.” Conner testified this was what Hazelbaker
was telling him. Conner testified they talked about “some of the other, you know, just 30
situations where other people were trying to get on the show, that he gets calls routinely for
people looking for work.” Conner testified they spoke about whether Bickford had any special
qualifications. Conner said Bickford did not have special qualifications where Conner could not
have used someone else to do the work. Conner testified, “So a lot of the questions I had to
agree to and say, yes, you know, I should have or I could have. You know, these are all things35
that were making me feel like I should have done something differently.” Conner testified
Hazelbaker “said that when Ralph pays his dues up, that doesn't mean he has 38 status or
that he's once again a 38 member, and he said that also when Ralph came back after he paid
his back owed money that he could go on an available status, but it would be if and when we
needed to use somebody from out of town; he shouldn't expect to be coming right back to work40
that following Monday after his vacation.” Conner testified, “That sums up most of everything I
can remember.” Conner testified he thought what Hazelbaker was saying was, “that Ralph
does not necessarily have work back here until we either exhaust the people that are looking
for work or that there's some other opportunity for him.” Conner testified that exhaust what
people was not said, and that the only thing Hazelbaker said “that he still had people that45
were looking to work on that show.”
Conner later testified that when he and Hazelbaker met face-to-face, Hazelbaker told
him that Bickford simply paying his back dues was not going to make everything right for
Bickford to start working again on Monday when he returned from his vacation. Conner testified 50
that, from his conversation with Hazelbaker, Conner’s understanding of the problem was that
JD–15–15
11
Bickford “was not a roster member.” Conner further testified that, his understanding from his
conversation with Hazelbaker, was the problem was that Bickford was not a member of Local
38. Conner testified he would not have let Bickford go had he not been confronted about hiring
him by Hazelbaker. Conner testified he may never have known that Bickford was not a member
of Local 38. Conner testified he was thinking of the roster as Local 38 members. Conner 5
testified he did not know if they made a distinction between who was on the roster and who were
local 38 members. He testified, “I am thinking of the roster as 38 members.” Conner also
testified he would not have hired Bickford if he thought he was a distant hire.
Conner testified he sent Bickford a text message on May 6. Conner testified the 10
purpose of the text was to inform Bickford what Hazelbaker and Conner had discussed during
their May 5 meeting. Conner testified, “I was letting him know that things were not okay and
that I was having a lot of trouble with what I had done. I felt I had done things wrong, and that
I thought that I was asking Ralph to step away from the situation like he had said he would if it
would get me in trouble.” Conner testified he did talk to Bickford eventually and it was close in 15
time, but after he sent Bickford the text message. Conner testified that Bickford talked about
maybe leaving the job for a while and coming back possibly in another department. Conner said
that was up to him because Conner could not force him on another department. Conner
testified, “the whole time I was more interested in him just accepting that something was wrong
and hoping that he would feel the same way I did and back away from the position.” Conner 20
testified that Bickford did not want to leave the job stating, “He was looking for other ways to
solve it, ….” When asked if at some point Conner terminated Bickford, Conner replied, “I felt
that it actually at some point became a little more mutual, that he was going to leave the
position, but ultimately, you know, I was asking him to do that.” Conner testified, “I asked him
to leave the position, …”. Conner testified that, “We talked about the fact that he had said 25
that he would step away if it was going to get me in trouble. I felt like I was in trouble. So we
basically just hashed through all these things, and then Ralph came to the realization that I
was asking him to leave, and he accepted that.” Conner also testified that before he decided
not to bring Bickford back from vacation in May, Conner talked to Dave Theelhart, the
rigging/electric best boy, and told him he was not going to bring Bickford back. Conner 30
testified that before he talked to Bickford, he had decided not to bring Bickford back, and he
informed Theelhart that he was not going to bring Bickford back.
Conner testified he spoke to a Board agent on June 13, concerning this case, and that
she sent an email confirmation of their conversation. Conner testified that the email the Board 35
agent sent seemed sketchy as far as the details, and there were th ings Conner fe l t
were not represented correctly so he took a lot of time and revised it, including adding
information to clarify things then returned the corrected email to the Board agent. Conner
testified his corrections appear in red on the returned email, which he sent on June 18 to
the Board agent, and which was entered into evidence. The email, as edited by Conner, 40
reads as follows:
The changes and additions in red are to more accurately describe this case to the best
of my recollection. Mike Conner
Dear Mr. Conner:45
This email will confirm our telephone conversation from today, Friday, June 13, 2014.
You stated that Ralph Bickford originally called you before the movie job started up in
Pontiac to see if you knew anything about it. Bickford wanted to work in fixtures on the
job. You both thought the Employer was going to bring someone in to head up the
fixtures department. Later, because the production company was insisting on as many 50
local hires as possible you were asked and ended up heading up the fixtures
JD–15–15
12
department. The residency of employees is important to the Union the Employer for
qualifying for the Ml State Incentives. The Local Union in the Detroit area is IATSE Local
38. Bickford told me that he was aIl good with the Union, that he still had a Michigan
drivers license and that if he was hired he would come in and live with his mother. I
assumed that Bickford had maintained his membership with Local 38 I would be hiring 5
someone with local qualifications. When Bickford found out I had been hired, he
contacted me with the expectation to be hired. At that point I not only was not allowed to
hire anyone just yet but I also had many other inquiries from other Local 38 members
who were interested in working with me on Fixtures. Bickford understood and I told him I
would let him know the situation when I was allowed to have additional people working 10
with me. When I was told I could hire additional people, I contacted Bickford and two
other Local 38 members.
The misunderstanding between you and Bickford was that when he said he was all
good with the Union you thought he meant he was all good with Local 38, your home
local in Michigan. But Bickford meant he was all good with the International and up to 15
date and in good standing in Las Vegas, his home local. Bickford's intention was to work
on the Pontiac job under his Las Vegas card.
Bickford worked on the Pontiac job for one week. When he came on the job he told
you he had a preplanned vacation and it was approved by you. Bickford only needed to
know where he would depart from in order to secure his travel.20
Near the completion of the 1st week you got your first phone call from the Union, Cal
Hazelbaker, the Local 38 BA. Cal asked me why I was hiring off-roster. He said there
are still people in town that are looking for work. I was also told that Bickford owed
money to Local 38. I told Cal that I had no idea that Bickford was not current with his
Local 38 membership and up to date. Cal did not tell me to get rid of Bickford he just 25
said it was a problem that I hired off-roster when there were local members looking for
work, and that Bickford was not in good standing with Local 38. When an employee is
coming to work on another card he is supposed to contact the Local Union as a formality
to gain permission, in some Locals the outside member can talk to his BA and he calls
the union where the work is being sought, and the 2 BAs talk to each other to ok the 30
member going to another local.
I was told that when Bickford left Local 38 to move to Las Vegas, he did not leave on
good terms and with no apparent plans to return. I was also told that I should have
checked the roster to verify Ralph was indeed a Local 38 member and that I should have
made a call to the hall myself to let them know who I am hiring.35
After I talked to Cal, I talked to Bickford. We talked about the misunderstanding. I
told him all the things that Cal had told me. I told him we had both done things
improperly. I told him that I needed to do the right thing here. I told him it was not right
for him to work ahead of other members if he was not in good standing with Local 38.
Bickford told me the last thing he wanted was for me to get in trouble over this. He said 40
he would call Cal and see if he could fix things. After talking to Cal, Bickford told me that
he needed to pay the money that was owed and then he would be able to work. In an
additional conversation with Cal, I still felt like the situation needed to be corrected.
Bickford's conversations with Cal seem to go ok but I still felt very much in trouble and
that I had done things improperly.45
After Bickford left to go on his vacation, I went down to talk to Cal face to face. We
revisited all the points of the hiring procedures and I further admitted that I had done
things incorrectly. I told him that Bickford is under the impression that if he pays his
money owed, he would be good to continue working. Cal clarified that Bickford, upon
paying money owed would be able to work, if and when we needed extra guys beyond 50
our local roster of qualified members. Cal told me if Ralph had special talents that I
JD–15–15
13
could not find locally that might be different but I admitted that I could try members that I
had not worked with first.
I contacted Bickford to let that it was not a simple pay and return to work. I told him
that I needed to correct the situation, that I didn't want this kind of mistake to follow me.
We talked for awhile and Bickford realized I didn't want to but I was letting him go. We 5
talked about him waiting a few weeks to see if things got busier but I told him l thought it
would be better if he checked other departments for their needs and that my next call if I
needed to find labor would be to our office.
He agreed, he said he could make a big deal about it but he would not do that
because I was involved. But then a few weeks later I found out he filed this charge 10
against the Union.
Since Bickford's departure, the local member that was filling in for him has continued
as part of my base crew and any additional hires have been available members needing
the work.
No documentation was provided to Bickford at the time he left the Pontiac job.15
Conner testified that when Bickford did not come back in May, Conner hired, in his
place, the person who had filled in for Bickford while he was on vacation. Conner testified that
Bickford’s replacement, along with the other two department employees, were there for the
whole time. Conner testified that, at the time of his testimony, Bickford’s replacement is no 20
longer there in that he left in late October to work on another show. Conner testified the
employee left on his own accord. Conner testified the employees who continued to work for
him in fixtures after Bickford was gone started at 10 hours a day and then in about 2 or 3 three
weeks went to 12 hours a day. Conner testified that there were no weeks where people were
missing days because they did not have work. Conner testified that once they went to 12 hours 25
they never went below that. Conner testified that they were paid for holidays such as Memorial
Day and July 4 whatever was standard in the contract. Conner testified the employees worked
before and after the holiday, as required, to allow them to be paid.
Conner testified he learned at some point in July that Bickford might return to work at the 30
Employer. Conner testified he received a call from Carroll from Warner Brothers labor relations.
Conner testified he was called by Production Supervisor Matt Hirsch after Conner spoke with
Carroll. Hirsch told Conner to find a position for Bickford. Conner testified at this time they were
decreasing rather than adding to their numbers. Conner testified he talked to the rigging/electric
best boy and told him that he had a situation. Conner testified they talked about possibly35
bringing Bickford in for a very temporary amount of time. Conner testified, “I had my three guys
now, I had replaced Ralph, so I had those same three positions, members that were working
very well for me. I was very satisfied, very happy with it.” Conner testified that Bickford’s
return was not completely up to Conner even though Hirsch had turned it that way. Conner
testified that each of the departments had their own budgets and if they really wanted Bickford 40
back they should have found a position for him as opposed to just telling Conner to solve it.
Conner also testified he thought Bickford’s returning to work “would be very uncomfortable.”
He testified that he told Bickford that. In this regard Conner, “I decided I needed to send Ralph
a letter because I didn't feel it was right to just bring him back.” On July 8, Conner sent
Bickford an email, the text of which appears above. Conner testified Bickford never responded 45
to Conner’s July 8 email.
While Conner testified no one ever told him to fire Bickford, Conner testified as follows:
Q. BY MS. NIXON: However, you indicated to Mr. Bickford in your text that you had to50
make things right.
JD–15–15
14
A. Yes.
Q. What were you making things right about?
A. The fact that I wouldn't have hired him if I had known he was not 38.
Q. Because why?
A. Because I thought that was a guideline that I should follow.5
Q. Okay.
JUDGE FINE: Where'd you get that idea?
THE WITNESS: Partially because just the way things are done and what I feel is right
about putting people to work that are members.
10
Conner testified that it was his understanding, and that he may be incorrect, that Local
38’s union roster is “a list of our local members.” Conner did not know if Local 38’s roster
contains nonunion members. Conner testified he knew the production company wanted to hire
local residents, and that the film was resident-sensitive. Conner was also aware that there were
collective bargaining implications in hiring local residents. Conner testified that in his initial 15
phone calls with Bickford one of the things Conner talked about with him was residency. Conner
testified that Bickford assured Conner that Bickford was going to live with his mother, and
Conner knew Bickford’s mother was a Michigan resident. Conner testified that when Bickford
was making his employment inquiries with the Employer that the Local 38 members
interested in working there were local residents. Conner testified he understood Bickford had 20
moved out of Michigan and that he was a resident of another state. Conner testified he
thought that if Bickford came back and lived with his mother that Conner would not be using a
distant hire. Conner testified that he was not focused on Bickford coming back and living with
his mother as it related to Bickford’s being a Michigan resident “as one of the things that I felt I
had done wrong, no.” Conner testified that his focus was that he had not hired someone off 25
roster and “that he was not a 38 member.” Conner testified that he was assuming that being
on the roster was the equivalent with Local 38 membership. He testified he does not know
whether that is accurate.
Conner testified that Hazelbaker told Conner that he had to hire off roster. Conner 30
testified, “He said what was I doing hiring off roster.” Conner testified that when Bickford told
Conner that Bickford was good with the union Conner thought “he was current with his 38
membership.” Conner testified that, “Often people from other states do keep their cards with
the state that they originated in or with a state that they had worked in. It’s very common to
have dual cards for more than one local.” Conner testified that Bickford did not have to be a 35
current Local 38 member to be hired on this job. Conner testified, “I know that now, yes. After
I read through the Warner Brothers policy for right to work state, I was very clear on a lot of
things that I was not clear at the time that these -- conversations were happening.” Conner
testified he read the Warner Brothers policy after Bickford’s unfair labor practice charge was
filed. Conner testified that, Hirsch released it soon after “they were confronted on this issue.” 40
Conner testified he read the policy after Bickford stopped working and that before that he did
not know. Conner testified that prior to that time, ‘I had not educated myself on all the rules of
right to work.”
Conner testified that what he thought Bickford had done improperly was not announcing 45
to Local 38 that he was coming in to work. Conner testified that Bickford should have told Local
38 that he was coming into town because Bickford knew he was member of the Las Vegas local.
Conner testified if Bickford, “was indicating to me that he was good with the union and was a
local member of the Vegas union, then he should have been declaring that he was coming in to
our local.” When asked what Conner did wrong, Conner testified, “I hired somebody from50
another local before I was -- that's my own moral feeling, I guess, is that I –“ “Before I hired
JD–15–15
15
somebody that was a 38 member.” When asked if this was his own set of ethics on the issue,
Conner testified, “Yes. Because I also know there are plenty of people from out of town
working on this show, but I just felt that I should be finding somebody that's a 38 member
before that.” In his June 18 statement, Conner wrote that, in a conversation with Bickford, “I
told him that I needed to do the right thing here. I told him it was not right for him to work 5
ahead of other members if he was not in good standing with local 38.”
Conner stated in his June 18 mail to the Region that Conner told Hazelbaker that
Bickford was under the impression that if he paid his money owed he would be good to continue
working. Conner stated in the email that, “Cal clarified that Bickford, upon paying money owed 10
would be able to work, if and when we needed extra guys beyond our local roster of qualified
members.” When asked at the hearing if Hazelbaker was telling Conner that local residents
needed to be put to work before Bickford, Conner testified, “I took it as members.” Conner
testified that he was being told by Hazelbaker at the face-to-face meeting that Bickford’s paying
his back dues was not going to flip the switch to get him back to work. Conner testified he did 15
not recall the word “residents” being used by Hazelbaker during the conversation. Conner
testified that he understood that Hazelbaker told him that Conner had to hire qualified people off
the local roster. Conner testified he repeated the word roster in his statement because that was
the first word Hazelbaker used when he called Conner.
20
B. Respondent’s witness
1. Calvin Hazelbaker’s testimony
Hazelbaker has been the business manager or representative for Local 38 since March 25
1, 2010. He is the chief operating officer of Local 38. Hazelbaker testified Local 38 has
contracts with various entities such as television stations, theaters, and arenas. Hazelbaker
testified that for non-movie productions such as these, Local 38 operates an exclusive hiring
hall. Hazelbaker explained Local 38’s referral procedure for these entities is Local 38 is
informed of the number of openings and then refers people from its referral list to be hired by the 30
employer. Hazelbaker testified there is no restriction on a stagehand getting on the referral list
based upon their union membership. Hazelbaker testified that Local 38 refers both Local 38
members and nonunion members for these jobs.
Hazelbaker testified that for movie productions such as Sage & Milo, Local 38 does not 35
have a referral system like the one it uses for the above venues. Hazelbaker testified that Local
38 supplies movie productions with a roster and they pick who they want to use or interview.
Hazelbaker testified that the term “roster” as applied for a picture such as Sage & Milo involves
the national contract negotiated by the International Union. Hazelbaker testified the national
contract requires that when a production company comes to Local 38’s jurisdiction, Hazelbaker 40
gives them a list of qualified people which they can use as a reference for hiring. The motion
picture does not have to use anyone from Local 38’s referral list as they can hire who
they wish. Hazelbaker testified they are obligated to look at the list before they start
hiring. Hazelbaker testified he usually gives the roster to a motion picture company
before they come to town as they call Local 38’s office and ask for a roster. 45
Hazelbaker testified that Crown City is a party to the national agreement because
Warner Brothers is signatory to that agreement. He testified that often a production
company is formed that only exists for the duration of a film, and Warner Brothers has such
a re lat ionship wi th Crown Ci ty .
50
JD–15–15
16
Hazelbaker identified Local 38’s film and television roster. Hazelbaker testified the
information on the roster changes as people leave and come to town. Hazelbaker testified there
is no requirement that an individual be a member of Local 38 member to get on Local 38’s
roster for the movie industry. He denied that he has discriminated against anyone in putting
people on the roster based on whether they are member of Local 38 or any other local union. 5
Hazelbaker testified there are people on the roster who are not affiliated with any union, and
there are people on the roster that do not live in the Michigan area. Hazelbaker testified he
gave a copy of Local 38’s then existing roster to the production company for Sage & Milo a few
months before May. Hazelbaker testified that to get on the roster you have to have experience
and film credits for the listed positions. Hazelbaker testified the roster contains the crafts Local 10
38 represents. He testified Local 38 has jurisdiction in their area over all aspects of motion
picture work except for work covered by the Teamsters. Hazelbaker testified no one has to pay
a fee to get on the roster.
Hazelbaker testified Sage & Milo was one of the biggest, if not, the biggest production 15
that came into Local 38’s area, and it was also one of the longest duration films. Hazelbaker
testified that in terms of the benefits of working on the film that if an employee could put six
months or more together, for most people that would make their year. He testified he would
characterize working on this film as a plum assignment. Hazelbaker testified, “we want as many
local people working as we can.” He testified, “Including Local 38 people, but that's how the20
crew base gets built. The bigger the crew base we have, the more films we'll be able to get.
So there are non-affiliated people working on the show, there's -- and in construction we've
reached out to the Brotherhood of Carpenters and the Plasterers local, and they have had
individuals come to work under our contract who have never joined the IA.” Hazelbaker
testified the Sage & Milo film was being shot under Michigan state incentives. He testified the 25
residency of employees is important to the Union.
Hazelbaker testified that “distant hire,” is a term in the collective-bargaining agreement.
Hazelbaker testified for a distant hire the employer would pay their transportation to Local 38’s
jurisdiction, provide them with a hotel room, and pay their per diem. He testified a distant hire’s 30
workdays are portal to portal, meaning they get picked up at their hotel and start on the clock at
that time. They remain on the clock until they arrive back at their hotel. Hazelbaker testified for
a local hire your day starts at your call time on the set and it ends at wrap. He testified there is
no per diem or travel paid for a local hire. Hazelbaker testified a distant hire is more expensive
than a local hire for a movie production company like Sage & Milo.35
Hazelbaker testified Bickford was an expelled member of Local 38 after 2007.
Hazelbaker testified Bickford was referred by Local 38 to non-movie production jobs between
2007 and 2010. Hazelbaker was not the business agent at that time. Hazelbaker testified he
was the business representative at a time when Bickford was an expelled member of Local 38, 40
but worked in Local 38’s jurisdiction. In this regard, Hazelbaker testified Bickford worked on the
films Red Dawn and Virgin on Bourbon Street and Hazelbaker did not make any effort to
contact the employers to have Bickford removed from those films. Hazelbaker testified Local 38
accepts cash for dues, for which it provides the individual with a receipt. Hazelbaker testified
Local 38’s records show Bickford still owed around $150 in back dues, which indicates the local 45
does not have a receipt showing Bickford paid those dues. Hazelbaker testified these dues
were owed since Bickford was expelled in 2007.
Hazelbaker testified he called Conner about Bickford's employment on the Sage & Milo
job. Hazelbaker testified “I asked him why he had hired Mr. Bickford as opposed to hiring a50
local guy to do the job.” Hazelbaker testified, “in my conversation with Mr. Conner, I was
JD–15–15
17
under the impression that Mr. Bickford was from Las Vegas, Nevada, that after he left our
jurisdiction around '10 or '11, that that's where he lived. I hadn't seen him…”. Hazelbaker
testified someone from the set told him Bickford was working there, which prompted
Hazelbaker’s call. The following exchange took place:
5
JUDGE FINE: Well, when you talked to Mr. Conner, what did you say to him?
THE WITNESS: I asked him did he hire him, and he said he did, and then I said, well,
why would you hire him when there's other local people to hire?
JUDGE FINE: And that was what you said?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.10
JUDGE FINE: Did you explain what local people was?
THE WITNESS: Well --
JUDGE FINE: Did -- just did you explain it to him any further is what I'm trying to find --
THE WITNESS: No.
15
However, Hazelbaker also testified that during the conversation with Conner, “I
expressed my concern about Mr. Bickford being in from Las Vegas, and I was assured that he
could live at his mother's house so that it would be okay.” Hazelbaker testified he was assured
of this by Conner. Hazelbaker testified he took issue with this stating he said, “he can't be
treated as a local just because his mother lives in our jurisdiction.” Hazelbaker testified, “I20
expressed my opinion from my understanding that Mr. Bickford lived in Las Vegas, and Mr.
Conner assured me that he could live at his mother's and thus be considered a local.”
Hazelbaker testified, “I said that that's not acceptable.” Hazelbaker testified he told Conner
that Bickford did not qualify and because his mother lived in Michigan did not make him a local
hire. Hazelbaker testified Conner said Bickford said he was good with the Union. Hazelbaker 25
testified, “I said, well, he's still an expelled member here, but I'll, you know, find out what's
what about Mr. Bickford from my end.” Hazelbaker testified he raised the issue with Conner
that Bickford was in arrears in his dues or that Bickford was an expelled member. Hazelbaker
testified this was not a disqualifier for him in terms of Bickford’s employment on the job.
Hazelbaker testified, “I told Mr. Conner that I thought Ralph was under the -- Mr. Bickford was30
under the opinion that if he paid the $150 or whatever that amount was, that that would be all
that was necessary. I told Mr. Conner he would have to wait until we were crewed up, which I
gave him an estimate of a couple weeks. At the rate that they were starting to hire
electricians, we would be out of qualified, available people in 2 weeks -- 10 days I told him.”
Hazelbaker testified Conner said he would talk to Bickford and get back to Hazelbaker. 35
Hazelbaker later testified he told Conner that if Bickford, “paid his back indebtedness to the
Local, that would not guarantee him work in our Local's jurisdiction.” He denied telling
Conner that Bickford could be hired again if no other Local 38 guys were looking for work.
Hazelbaker testified his concern about the hiring of local residents of Michigan was the focus
of his conversation with Conner.40
Hazelbaker testified Conner came to the local hall to speak to him about Bickford. He
testified he did not have any discussion with Conner that was different from their first discussion.
He testified that, “we pretty much talked about the -- that he couldn't jump ahead of local guys
and be treated as a local, that it wasn't right.” Hazelbaker then testified, “I probably didn't say45
‘guys’; I probably said ‘locals.’” Hazelbaker testified Connor did not ask him for an
explanation. Hazelbaker testified when he used the term locals he meant, “residents of our
jurisdiction.”
Hazelbaker testified there was no restriction on Sage & Milo hiring Bickford and paying50
him as a distant hire. Hazelbaker testified, “Once we're crewed up, there's a number of former
JD–15–15
18
Michigan residents who have a place to stay that we, in order to help the producers, we'll
occasionally say, if you need this guy and he's got skills, we'll turn a blind eye once
everybody's hired up. It's not unusual, but it's not standard.” Hazelbaker gave that
explanation as to when Local 38 might allow Sage and Milo to hire Bickford and pay him as a
local hire. Hazelbaker testified, “I asked Mr. Conner if they – if Mr. Bickford had a skill set that5
we could not replicate locally, in which case I would understand why they had to have him in
that job. Mr. Conner indicated that there were local people available who could do the same
job that Mr. Bickford was hired to do.” Hazelbaker testified he asked this question because if
there were circumstances that the film needed Bickford's talent to move forward, then that
would make cause for an exception for him to not have to wait until all the local people were10
hired. He testified, “We still would then have to address why he wasn't being treated as a
distant hire, but I would understand that his skill set was needed in the production.“
Hazelbaker testified he did not recall making a remark about the Teamsters to Conner,
but he did not deny that he made such a remark. Hazelbaker testified, “I'm often perhaps a bit15
sarcastic or flippant, and I'm often someone who might make a joke at the expense of the
Teamsters.” Hazelbaker explained IATSE and the Teamsters work together especially on the
motion pictures and in concerts. He testified it was not unlike other groups that work together,
one group seems to make fun of the other a bit. Hazelbaker testified he did not intend to
threaten Conner. He testified he never made any reference to retaliation or interruptions of 20
work to Conner.
Hazelbaker testified he only talked to Bickford one time concerning these events and
that was a phone conversation. Hazelbaker testified, “I told Mr. Bickford that I thought he still
owed us some money. I think by the time he spoke to me, I had talked to our office manager,25
Michele Shuman, and she indicated that the record showed that he owed once again about
$150 in that neck of the woods,…” Hazelbaker testified when he expressed the number to
Bickford, Bickford, he knew the number as an accurate number and offered to pay it when he
came back from Florida. Hazelbaker testified the Union did not have a record of Bickford
previously paying the money. Hazelbaker testified Bickford did not claim he previously paid 30
the money. Hazelbaker testified, “I think -- as I recall the conversation was we both kind of
thought that it was likely that he still owed the $150.”
Hazelbaker testified he did not recall saying anything else to Bickford about his work at
Sage & Milo. He testified they only had the conversation about the dues. Hazelbaker testified 35
he did not recall talking with Bickford about his being from out of town. Hazelbaker testified he
did not mention that to Bickford because that was between Conner, the person who hired
Bickford, and Hazelbaker. Hazelbaker testified the call with Bickford was pretty short
estimating it was around five minutes in length. Hazelbaker testified he did not recall stating to
Bickford that he had not heard from him in years and that he did not think Bickford was still 40
there, but he testified that could have been part of the conversation. When asked if he had a
discussion with Bickford about his residence or his driver's license, Hazelbaker replied, “I may
have mentioned that I thought he was still out in Las Vegas.” When asked if Bickford stated
anything about where he resided, Hazelbaker responded, “I believe he told me he was a
member of Local 720 in Las Vegas.” Hazelbaker testified this discussion concerned Bickford’s 45
job status in Michigan stating, “that's how we came to the -- me finding out that Mr. Bickford
had joined the local out in Las Vegas.” Hazelbaker also testified he did not know one way or
the other if Bickford told him that Bickford had a Michigan driver’s license. He testified he did
not believe Bickford told him that he was a resident of Michigan during their conversation,
although he testified it may have happened.50
JD–15–15
19
Hazelbaker testified Local 38 refers people as long as they live locally and Local 38 has
no objection to the Employer hiring someone who is local whether or not they are a union
member. He testified he was concerned about Bickford’s past dues because part of
Hazelbaker’s job is to look out for Local 38’s interests. Hazelbaker testified, “If he's here
working in our jurisdiction and he owes us some money, I feel obligated to ask the gentlemen 5
could he see his way fit to pay the money he owes us.” Hazelbaker testified he did not raise
the issue of Bickford’s past dues when he worked on Red Dawn or Virgin on Bourbon Street
stating “I may not have at the time been aware that he hadn't paid.”
Hazelbaker testified he had no discussion with Conner about whether Bickford could 10
return to work at the Employer after the Board charges were filed. He testified he never
indicated to Conner that Local 38 would have a problem with Bickford’s reinstatement.
Hazelbaker testified there is a practice or policy that when individuals who are members of other
IATSE locals come to work in the jurisdiction of another local for them to call and ask permission
to work in that local’s jurisdiction. Hazelbaker testified Bickford did not call him prior to 15
Bickford’s coming to work at Sage & Milo. Hazelbaker testified this policy would apply to
Bickford since he is a member of IATSE. Hazelbaker testified the call and request permission
requirement is a provision of the International Union’s constitution. However, Hazelbaker
testified there is no policy that requires the Employer to notify Local 38 before it hires a
nonmember of Local 38. He testified concerning the incentives for the motion picture industry 20
there is no requirement that the Employer hire only Michigan residents.
Hazelbaker testified the evidence he had in May when he talked to Bickford and
Conner that Bickford was not a resident of Michigan was, “One, he was coming from Las
Vegas where he's a member of their local; two, Mr. Conner said that he would be able to use25
his mother's house as a residence, which would indicate to me that his residence was not at
his mother's house but in Las Vegas, Nevada.” Hazelbaker testified he did not believe he
spoke to Bickford about where he was staying in the Detroit area. He testified rather they
spoke about his being from Las Vegas. Hazelbaker testified he did not know whether Bickford
had a Michigan driver’s license. Hazelbaker testified that, “I inferred from the fact that he could30
use his mother's house as his address as a way to dodge distant hire provisions of the contract.”
Hazelbaker testified Local 38 does not receive any money from the state when a movie
production comes to town. He testified Local 38 does not receive any government benefits
other than the opportunity for employment. He testified Local 38 receives dues or fees from
employees once they work within Local 38’s jurisdiction for this particular employer, although 35
Michigan became a right to work state around a year ago. Hazelbaker testified there were Local
38 members calling him to get jobs on the Sage and Milo production.
C. Credibility
40
On the whole, I found Bickford to be a credible witness, who testified as best his memory
would permit. I have taken into consideration that, in the past, Bickford misrepresented his
residency status in seeking employment on a one time basis in Ohio. However, he readily
admitted the misrepresentation during this proceeding, explained why he did it, and did not
attempt to cover it up. On the other hand, in the present case, Bickford informed Conner in 45
advance of his being hired that he was in Nevada during their phone contacts and that if given
the job Bickford would travel to Michigan and live in his mother’s home. Bickford had a Michigan
driver’s license, his vehicles were registered in Michigan, and over the years he had maintained
a presence in the state in terms of work, and vehicle ownership. He accurately depicted in his
employment application with Employer both his Michigan and Nevada connection, and it was 50
sufficient for the Employer’s purposes to hire him as a local resident. While he certified
JD–15–15
20
Michigan was his domicile in the application documents, he had a longer connection with
Michigan than he did with Nevada, and it is not within my province with respect to this decision
to resolve any dispute the parties or the state of Michigan might have with Bickford in terms of
his residency status. Moreover, Conner who terminated Bickford, testified residency was not the
cause of the termination, nor as Connor testified was Bickford residence the central subject of 5
Union official Hazelbaker’s complaint. Therefore, having observed his demeanor, I have
credited Bickford’s testimony concerning his hiring by the Employer, and the events leading to
his termination.
Conner impressed me as a bright individual. However, he testified as someone who was 10
between a rock and a hard place. He had certain loyalties to Bickford as a long time friend, but
he felt mislead by Bickford when he said he was good with the union, when Bickford did not
disclose he was a member of the Las Vegas local, as opposed to being a member of Local 38.
Conner, himself a long time member of Local 38, had seen Hazelbaker attempt to interfere with
Bickford’s employment status, and thus as a matter of self-preservation, he took Local 38’s side 15
of the dispute over Bickford’s by the fact that he discharged Bickford, and then wrote Bickford a
lengthy email where he indicated a preference for Local 38 members for hiring in the future, and
cast doubt to Bickford as to the viability of Bickford’s returning to work for the Employer. I also
note that it stated in Conner’s July 8 email to Bickford that Conner had been contacted by
Local’s 38’s legal representatives, and I have concluded that, while he did not outright 20
misrepresent what transpired, Conner shaded his testimony in an effort to coincide with the
nuanced defense presented by Local 38. This will be explained in more detail in the analysis
section.
I did not find Hazelbaker’s account to be as accurate as it might have been. First, I have 25
credited Bickford that he had two phone calls with Hazelbaker, rather than one as Hazelbaker
contended. In this regard, Conner had informed Bickford that Bickford’s initial call to Hazelbaker
did not resolve the matter, Bickford stated to Conner he was going to call again, and it was
clearly in Bickford’s interest to follow through and make the second call to Hazelbaker as he
credibly testified he did. I have also found Hazelbaker’s recall of his contact with Bickford to be 30
hazy at best. Hazelbaker testified that in his conversation with Bickford that Bickford admitted
he owed Local 38 money; however, I have found Bickford’s account that he asserted he had
paid the back dues, and Hazelbaker was going to investigate the matter to be more convincing.
Hazelbaker also testified that he did not recall saying anything about Bickford’s work for the
Employer to Bickford or talking to Bickford about his being from out of town. He initially testified 35
that he only had the conversation with Bickford about dues. He then testified he may have
discussed Bickford’s being in Las Vegas with Bickford, and that Bickford told him he was a
member of Las Vegas Local 720. He then could not recall whether Bickford told him he had a
Michigan driver’s license, or whether Bickford stated Bickford was a Michigan resident, admitting
it could have happened. I therefore, considering their demeanor, have credited Bickford’s 40
description of his conversations with Hazelbaker over that provided by Hazelbaker.
I also note that Hazelbaker testified that in his contacts with Conner that he told Conner
that Bickford lived in Las Vegas, and that his living with his mother in Michigan and being treated
by the Employer as a local resident was not acceptable. I do not credit this aspect of 45
Hazelbaker’s testimony, as I have concluded that if Hazelbaker made such a clear dispute of
Bickford’s residency to Conner that Conner would have recalled it. Yet, Conner testified he was
not even certain that Bickford’s residency was discussed with Hazelbaker and that if it was it
was not the focus of the conversation. I have also not credited Hazelbaker’s testimony that he
told Conner that he thought at the rate the Employer was hiring that they would have hired all of 50
the locals in 2 weeks, at which point Bickford could be brought back to work. This was not
JD–15–15
21
corroborated by Conner, and there was no basis provided for Hazelbaker to have concluded
that all of Local 38’s available roster would have been hired in 2 weeks. In fact, as expressed in
Conner’s July 8 email to Bickford he stated that Local 38 members were still looking for work.
Finally, the tone of the July 8 email where Conner vehemently attempted to dissuade Bickford
from returning to the Employer undercuts Hazelbaker’s claim that he told Conner that such a 5
return would possibly be sanctioned by the Union in the not too distant future. In this regard, I
have concluded Conner, a Local 38 member, who may have been dependent on Local 38 for
his own future referrals was acting on what he perceived his instructions from Hazelbaker to be,
and Conner in his contacts with Bickford in no way conveyed the impression in May that there
was a possibility of reinstatement or that Conner would attempt to facilitate such.10
D. Analysis
A union violates Section 8(b)(2) of the Act when it attempts to cause or causes an
employer to fire or lay off employees for reasons other than their failure to pay dues and fees 15
under a valid union-security clause, including attempts to have employers fire travelers because
of their status as travelers. See, Plumbers Local 392 (Oberle-Jorde Co.), 273 NLRB 786, 793
(1984). In Plumbers Local 392, the union’s business agent visited a construction site and told
the employer’s construction manager that 450 local members were out of work and asked the
employer to lay off travelers and replace them with local members. The construction manager 20
stated he could not afford to lay off anyone. During this time period, the union steward had
conversations with the travelers working at the site and told them they should plan on making
the next day their last, and that anyone who was asked to leave and refused to do so would be
sanctioned by the hall, they would never work out of the local again, and the union would not be
responsible for what happened if they showed up on the job. None of the six travelers appeared 25
for work the following Monday, and after 3 days of unexcused absences they were terminated
by the employer. The Board approved the judge’s finding that the union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by the actions of the steward whose threats caused the travelers to leave their jobs.
The Board found the union also violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by attempting to cause the
employer to layoff the travelers. In finding the Section 8(b)(2) violation, the judge noted at 793, 30
with Board approval that:
There is no evidence that any threats were made or any inducements offered in order to
get the Employer to lay them off or that the Employer had any intention of complying with
the request.[FN7] Notwithstanding the fact that Jeffers made only a “bare request,” which 35
was not acceded to by the Employer, I find there was an unlawful “attempt to cause” the
Employer to discriminate against the travelers in violation of Section 8(a)(3) because
there was no legitimate basis for this request, which was premised solely on the Union's
desire to employ its local members at the expense of the travelers. Consequently, the
Respondent's action violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.”[FN8]40
Thus, for the finding of a Section 8(b)(2) violation it is not required that a union threaten or
coerce an employer to cause it to discriminate against an employee; all that is required is that
when a union attempts to cause, or causes such discrimination. See, Local 334, Laborers
International Union of North America (Kvaerner Songer, Inc.), 335 NLRB 597, 600 (2001); and 45
Carpenters Local 1456 (Underpinning Constructors), 306 NLRB 492 (1992), enfd. 993 F.2d
1533 (2nd Cir. 1993).
A union that operates a nonexclusive hiring hall, such as Local 38 here, will be found to
violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) when it interferes with an individual's employment because 50
that individual was not referred for employment by the union; or because of the individual's
JD–15–15
22
membership status; or for union related reasons. Kvaerner Songer, Inc., 343 NLRB 1343, 1346
(2004); Carpenters Local 2369 (Tri-State Ohbayashi), 287 NLRB 760, 762-763 (1987), enfd.
878 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1989); and R-M Framers, Inc., 207 NLRB 36 (1973). In R-M Framers,
Id. at 44, the judge, with Board approval, found a causal link between statement from a union
official and the unlawful discharge of an employee even though there was no direct request for 5
such discharge. There the judge stated:
This Board has consistently held, with judicial concurrence, that a labor organization
need not make a specific demand upon some concerned employer to terminate a worker
for illegal reasons before Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) violations may be found. See Local 10
Union No. 742, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (J. L.
Simmons Company, Inc.), 157 NLRB 451, 453-454, enfd. 377 F.2d 929 (C.A.D.C.,
1967); Local Union No. 592, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO (Brunswick Corporation), 135 NLRB 999, 1000-02; Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 193 (Southeastern 15
Plate Glass Company), 129 NLRB 412, 413. Compare Local Union No. 230, Sheetmetal
Workers International Association, AFL-CIO (Twin City Roofing), 165 NLRB 151, 152-
154, 154-155, 156, in this connection. I find these precedents germane; further, upon
this record, I find their principle dispositive.
20
Along these lines, the Board has held that unlawful interference by a union in an employee's
employment need not be shown by an express request, demand, or threat. It is sufficient if any
pressure or inducement by the union is used to influence an employer in terms of an employee’s
employment relationship with that employer. See, Stage Employees IASTE Local 665
(Columbia Picture) 268 NLRB 570, 572 (1984), enfd. 751 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1984) (where 25
statement that an individual who had let his dues lapse was not in good standing and that the
employer should use one of four other named individuals was sufficient to violate the Act. See
also, Electrical Workers Local 441 (Otto K. Oleson Electronics), 221 NLRB 214 (1975), enfd.
562 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1977); and Northwestern Montana District Council of Carpenters (Glacier
Park Co.), 126 NLRB 889, 897 (1960). 30
Moreover, in order to establish a violation of the Act, direct evidence that a union
requested an employer to discriminate is not necessary. A violation can be found on the part of
a union if there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference of a union request or a
union employer understanding. See, Avon Roofing, 312 NLRB 499 (1993); and Kellog 35
Constructors, 273 NLRB 1049, 1051 (1984), remanded on other grounds 806 F.2d 1435 (9th
Cir. 1986). Thus, in Groves-Granite, 229 NLRB 56, 63-67 (1977), it was stated that while the
evidence was heavily circumstantial, it warranted a finding that union official Peaslee and
employer representative Wells had worked out a deal that employee Baublitz be transferred and
that as a direct outgrowth of this, employer representative Vestal prevailed on Wells to 40
discharge Baublitz, and thus the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, and the
employer discharged the employee in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) in collaboration with
the union. It was stated on the threshold issue of union causation that Baublitz had filed internal
union charges against Peaslee just a week before the discharge. It was stated that although
there was no explicit evidence that Peaslee’s irritation over the filing of an internal union charge 45
a week before the discharge translated in an attempt to affect Baublitz’ job status, there was
ample basis to infer that the discharge was precipitated by some kind of understanding between
Peaslee and Wells on the general subject, their denials notwithstanding.5

5 The Board will find a derivative Section 8(b)(1)(A) allegation when a Section 8(b)(2)
violation is established. See, Postal Workers, 350 NLRB 219, 222 (2007); Jacoby v. NLRB, 233
JD–15–15
23
In NLRB v Local 776, IATSE (Film Editors), 303 F.2d 513, 516 (9th Cir. 1962), cert.
denied 371 U.S. 826 (1962), concerning an 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) allegation, the court stated:
The trial examiner acknowledged in his Intermediate Report that there was no direct 5
proof of respondent (union's) complicity in the dismissal; however, he was of the opinion
that the record manifested an ‘implicit’ demand by respondent (union) upon Cascade to
discharge Carlson. Respondent readily recognizes the power of the Board to draw
reasonable inferences and make other pertinent deductions from the evidence (Radio
Officers' Union of, etc., v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 48-52, 74 S.Ct. 323 (1954)), but argues 10
with much vigor that here this foundation is completely absent so that the finding is not
‘supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole * * *’ within the
meaning of sections 10(e) and (f) of the Act. Id. 516-517.
In sustaining the Board’s finding of a violation against the union the court stated “the Board's 15
factual conclusion is neither unreasonable nor too tenuous to stand. In NLRB v Local 776,
IATSE (Film Editors), supra, Cascade, Carlson's employer, questioned the respondent union as
to whether Carlson’s job was covered by the employer’s collective-bargaining agreement with
the union. Union official Todd discussed the matter with one of Cascade’s officials, who a few
days later notified employer official Loftus that the job came under the union’s jurisdiction. 20
Carlson testified Loftus told him that the union was on his back, and he was forced to let
Carlson go by the end of the week. The court stated Loftus’ statement although admissible
evidence concerning the employer pertaining to the 8(a)(3) allegation was hearsay as to the
respondent union. However, the court concluded additional statements concerning union agent
Todd following the discharge provided a sufficient basis to sustain the unfair labor practice 25
finding. In affirming the 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) finding the court noted, that the sequence of
events including that Carlson’s job was taken by a member of the respondent union, and Todd’s
statement’s recognizing a moral obligation to find Carlson work are persuasive to the finding
that the respondent union played a prominent role in Carlson’s termination from Cascade, as
well as the finding that an employer is not in the habit of dismissing competent employees to 30
replace them with another. The Board has relied on statements by supervisors in the 8(b)(2)
context, in part, to establish that a union has violated the Act. See, M. W. Kellogg Constructors,
273 NLRB 1049, 1051-1052 (1984).
Unions can maintain and enforce internal regulations as long as the enforcement of 35
those internal regulations do not affect a member's employment status. See, Scofield v. NLRB,
394 U.S. 423, 428-429 (1969). See, Bricklayers Local No. 1 (Mason Contractors Assn.), 308
NLRB 350 (1992), where a union was found to violate the Act by its refusal to issue a work
permit to a nonmember which was required as condition of employment in order to give
employment preference to existing members. See also, Laborer’s, Local No. 721, 246 NLRB 40
691, 693 (1979); and Pittsburgh Press, Co., 241 NLRB 666 (1979).

F.3d 611, 618 (D.C. Cir. 2000); and NLRB v. Iron Workers Union, Local 433, 767 F.2d 1438,
1440 (9th Cir. 1985). In particular, in H.C. Macaulay Foundry Co., 223 NLRB 815, 821, fn. 8,
(1976), the Board approved the judge’s finding of a Section 8(b)(1)(A) violation where the
complaint only alleged a violation of Section 8(b)(2) by the union. There the judge stated, “The
complaint alleges a violation of Sec. 8(b)(2) of the Act. It does not allege a violation of Sec.
8(b)(1)(A) which is derivative of the 8(b)(2) violation. However, as the underlying facts
pertaining to a violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) are identical to those upon which the 8(b)(2) violation
is premised and the legal theory for both violations is identical, I find that Respondent Union by
its misconduct has also violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.”
JD–15–15
24
In the instant case, the credited testimony reveals the following: Bickford had been a
member of Local 38 from 2001 until December 5, 2007, when he was expelled for the non-
payment of dues. The amount owed was $94, with a $10 late fee, and a $50 reinstatement fee
totaling $154. Bickford claimed to have repaid the amount owing to Local 38 in June 2010, 5
although he did not retain a receipt for the payment. Bickford credibly testified that he always
signed a dues check off form while working for a contract employer in Local 38’s jurisdiction,
and I have credited this testimony as Bickford signed such a form with the Employer in this
case, although Michigan had become a right to work state. Since Bickford always signed dues
check off for Local 38 when he was employed with a contract employer, I have concluded that,10
in order to maintain his membership, Bickford had a dues obligation to Local 38 even for times
in which he was not employed. In this regard, Bickford testified that when you are a member of
the union you are required to pay quarterly stamps to the local union, and the stamp means
your dues are current. Thus, Local 38 had a financial interest in seeing that individuals who are
full members achieved employment over those who were not. 15
On January 1, 2014, Bickford became a member of Las Vegas Local 720 of IATSE, and
he testified he maintained his membership in good standing with that local. Bickford learned of
the Sage & Milo production from a contact in Las Vegas. Bickford made a call from Nevada in
February 2014 to Best Boy Jones for Sage & Milo wherein Bickford inquired about a job on the 20
production. Jones told Bickford that he would have to have a Michigan driver’s license and a
Michigan address to be hired. Bickford told Jones that he had both. Bickford spoke to Sage &
Milo Fixture Foreman Conner about a job on the production during the first week in April. He
and Conner had been long time friends and they had worked together in the past. Conner was
a long time member of Local 38.25
As per Bickford’s credited testimony, Conner hired Bickford who began his employment
with Sage & Milo in the fixture department on April 28. Conner, during the course of their pre-
hire discussions approved a vacation for Bickford from May 3 to May 9. Bickford testified that
while having his pre-employment discussions with Conner that Conner was aware that Bickford 30
was in Nevada. During these pre-hire discussions with Conner, Bickford told Conner that
Bickford was good with the union, to which Bickford meant he was a member in good standing
with Las Vegas Local 720. Bickford told Conner that Bickford would come to Michigan and live
with Bickford’s mother while working on the film. He testified that Conner knew Bickford was
renting a house in Nevada.6 Bickford signed employment related documents for the Employer 35
on April 28 wherein he listed a Michigan address, and for which he also produced a current
Michigan state driver’s license. When Bickford started on April 28, there were two other
members of Conner’s crew, who Conner testified were members of Local 38.
Conner testified that on Friday morning, May 2, Conner received a voice mail from Local 40
38 Business Representative Hazelbaker for Conner to call Hazelbaker as soon as possible.7
Conner testified he called Hazelbaker that morning, and during the call Hazelbaker wanted to
know why Conner hired off roster. Conner told Hazelbaker that when Bickford had told Conner
that Bickford was good with the union, Conner thought that Bickford meant Local 38.
Conner testified Hazelbaker told Conner that Hazelbaker thought Bickford owed Local 38 money 45

6 Conner confirmed that Bickford was willing to come to Michigan and live with his mother for
the duration of his employment, that he was told Bickford had a Michigan driver’s license, and
that Bickford told Conner that Bickford was good with the Union. Conner testified that he had
pre-approved a vacation for Bickford before he started.
7 Hazelbaker testified he had received a report that Bickford was working on the job.
JD–15–15
25
and Hazelbaker “seemed pretty upset that I had hired this guy.” Hazelbaker “said that he also
had people that were still calling looking for work on the show and that, you know, that I
should've checked to make sure that Ralph was on the roster, which I had not done.” When
asked what roster Hazelbaker was talking about Conner testified, “It's a member roster of
people that are available or that have current status with Local 38 that are members and5
would be available to work.”8 Conner testified Hazelbaker said he wanted to check to see how
much Bickford owed. Conner testified “so I think we actually kind of paused our conversation
and then spoke again after he found out, you know, what that amount was or whether he did
indeed owe money.” Conner testified Hazelbaker said, “do we need to have a Teamster have
an accident?” Conner testified “it was said in a joking way, but it's something that stuck in my10
head as to why I acted the way I did as result.” Conner testified he and Hazelbaker discussed
that, when Bickford left Michigan and Local 38 to go to Las Vegas, Bickford left on bad terms.
Conner testified he had two calls with Hazelbaker that morning. Conner testified that,
during one of the calls, he was almost certain Hazelbaker asked what Bickford’s intentions 15
were and Conner informed Hazelbaker that Bickford had a Michigan driver’s license. Conner
testified Bickford’s residence must have been discussed with Hazelbaker, but he did not recall
whether the discussion took place in the first or second call. Conner did not testify to a certainty
that Bickford’s residence was discussed, rather he testified “I think it was.” Conner testified
Bickford’s residency was not the focus of the conversation. 20
Conner testified that, after his first conversation with Hazelbaker on May 2, Conner
spoke to Bickford. Conner testified he confronted Bickford on the fact that Bickford had told
Conner that Bickford was good with the union, and now Local 38 was telling Conner that
Bickford was not current with his membership, that he owed money, and that this had put 25
Conner in a bad situation. Conner testified this was because Conner hired Bickford under the
assumption that Bickford’s Local 38 membership was good even though Bickford was coming in
from out of town. Conner testified, “I didn't feel he was being dishonest. I just, you know,
suddenly we had this, you know, I had misunderstood what he meant --and would have
treated the situation different.” Conner testified Bickford said the last thing he wanted to do 30
was to get Conner in trouble. Bickford said if it was going to get Conner in trouble Bickford
would walk away from the job. Bickford said he would call Hazelbaker.
Similarly, Bickford testified that on May 2, around 10 to 10:30 a.m., Conner called
Bickford and said Conner had just gotten off the phone with Hazelbaker. He testified Conner 35
said Hazelbaker had chewed Conner out because Conner hired Bickford in the position of
fixtures, and Conner said to Bickford that, “I thought that you said that you were okay with the
union?“ Bickford testified he responded that he was okay with the union. However, Conner
replied that Hazelbaker said Bickford was not a member. Bickford said he never said he was a
member of Local 38, that he was a member of Local 720. Bickford asked Conner if he wanted 40
Bickford to call Hazelbaker, and Conner said he thought Bickford should call him.
Bickford testified that, on May 2, following his conversation with Conner, Bickford called
Hazelbaker at around 10:30 a.m. Bickford credibly testified that: Hazelbaker told him that if
Bickford was coming into a home local Bickford should have called Hazelbaker first to get 45

8 In fact, Hazelbaker testified he had received calls from Local 38 members seeking work
on the film, which was a major production, and which both Conner and Hazelbaker described
as a very good job in terms of duration for those who received it. Thus, pursuant to calls from
Local 38 members, Hazelbaker had a strong motive to ensure that Local 38 members received
as much work as possible on this film.
JD–15–15
26
permission to work on the movie. Hazelbaker said he had other members who were not
working and they should be hired first. Bickford asked Hazelbaker what Bickford could do to
make it right. Hazelbaker said Bickford owed back dues and Bickford replied he paid those
dues. Hazelbaker said he would have Hazelbaker’s secretary Michele send a letter to the
International to see whether Bickford owed any back dues to Local 38. Bickford said that was 5
fine but asked what they were going to do in the meantime. Hazelbaker said they should
figure out what was going to happen with the dues. Hazelbaker said they will wait for a letter
from the International to which Bickford said alright. Bickford testified as far as he knew that
was all that was going to happen that day. He testified at that point the issue was back dues.
Bickford later testified that, in his first conversation with Hazelbaker, Hazelbaker asked if 10
Bickford had a driver’s license and Hazelbaker said one of the requirements for this is a
residence and a driver’s license in Michigan, and Bickford said he had both. Bickford
testified Hazelbaker said he had not heard from Bickford in years and he did not know
Bickford was still in the area. Bickford said he did not get work from Local 38 and
Bickford did not know he had to keep Local 38 informed as to where he lived. Bickford 15
stated in his pre-hearing affidavit that, “Cal also said he didn’t even think I was in town
anymore, and one of the issues was that I had to be a resident of Michigan.”
Conner testified that Bickford did call Hazelbaker, and after placing the call Bickford
acted like all he needed to do was pay the money owed and everything would be good. 20
However, Conner testified that, based on his discussions with Hazelbaker, Conner thought
things were not good that what Conner had done was wrong and Conner needed to fix the
situation. When asked what he thought he had done wrong, Conner testified pertaining to
Bickford , “Hiring him in front of 38 members.” Conner testified he spoke to Hazelbaker a
second time on May 2. Conner testified the conversation was similar to the first call in that he 25
was told he should have checked the roster, that he should have verified whether or not Bickford
was a member. He testified “we basically went through a lot of the same things.” Conner
testified that on May 2, he indicated to Bickford that things did not seem right. Conner testified
Bickford said he would call Hazelbaker a second time.
30
Bickford testified that, “I guess after lunch Mike Conner had had another conversation
with Cal, and I guess Cal read him the riot act about having me –“ Bickford testified credibly
testified that: Conner said to him there was an issue about Bickford being employed because
Bickford was not a member and members of Local 38 were not working. Conner said he
spoke to Hazelbaker about it, and Conner was worried about his reputation with Local 38. 35
Bickford told Conner that Bickford would call Hazelbaker and see what he could work out.
Bickford made two attempts to call Hazelbaker and he left messages. Hazelbaker called
Bickford back around 4:30 p.m. on May 2. During the conversation, Bickford told Hazelbaker
that, if Bickford needed to get a dual card, Bickford would be happy to apply for membership
with Local 38. Hazelbaker said they would see what happens with Bickford’s back dues first 40
concerning the letter Local 38 was sending to the International. Bickford told Hazelbaker that
Bickford was worried about Conner’s reputation and Bickford asked if Conner was ok.
Hazelbaker said Conner was ok, and he had already said what he needed to say to Conner.
Bickford said there was never a problem when he came in and worked on Real Steel and
there was never a problem with any of the movies Bickford worked on before Hazelbaker was 45
the business representative. Bickford said he did not know why when he came into work
before when he was not a member of any union there was no problem, now that he was a
member of the Las Vegas local he did not understand what the problem was. Bickford said he
thought this was getting way out of proportion.
50
JD–15–15
27
Conner testified Bickford came up to Conner at the end of the day on May 2, while he
was in a meeting, and Bickford gave Conner “a thumbs up like everything was okay, and just
said, we're good.” However, Conner testified he felt uneasy and on Monday, May 5, Conner
went to see Hazelbaker at the union office. Conner testified, “We talked a little bit more in detail
of what some of the formalities would be as far as somebody coming in from out of town,5
things that I should have done, calling to check the roster, but also calling to declare that
somebody is coming from out of town to work, which is something either I should have done
or something Ralph should have done, or even possibly had his BA call Cal.” Conner testified
this was what Hazelbaker was telling him. Conner testified they discussed there were other
people trying to get on the show, and that Hazelbaker routinely receives calls from people 10
looking for work. Conner testified they spoke about whether Bickford had any special
qualifications. Conner said Bickford did not have special qualifications where Conner could not
have used someone else to do the work. Conner testified, “So a lot of the questions I had to
agree to and say, yes, you know, I should have or I could have. You know, these are all things
that were making me feel like I should have done something differently.” Conner testified that 15
Hazelbaker “said that when Ralph pays his dues up, that doesn't mean he has 38 status or
that he's once again a 38 member, and he said that also when Ralph came back after he paid
his back owed money that he could go on an available status, but it would be if and when we
needed to use somebody from out of town; he shouldn't expect to be coming right back to work
that following Monday after his vacation.” Conner testified he thought what Hazelbaker was 20
saying was, “that Ralph does not necessarily have work back here until we either exhaust the
people that are looking for work or that there's some other opportunity for him.” Conner
testified that exhaust what people was not said, and that the only thing Hazelbaker said “that
he still had people that were looking to work on that show.”
25
However, Conner later testified that when he and Hazelbaker met face-to-face,
Hazelbaker told him that Bickford simply paying his back dues was not going to make everything
right for Bickford to start working again on Monday when he returned from his vacation. Conner
testified that from his conversation with Hazelbaker Conner’s understanding of the problem was
that Bickford “was not a roster member.” Conner testified his understanding from his 30
conversation with Hazelbaker was the problem was Bickford was not a member of Local 38.
Conner testified he would not have let Bickford go had he not been confronted about hiring him
by Hazelbaker. Conner testified he may never have known Bickford was not a member of Local
38. Conner testified he was thinking of the roster as Local 38 members. Conner testified he did
not know if they made a distinction between who was on the roster and who were local 38 35
members. He testified, “I am thinking of the roster as 38 members.”
On May 6, Conner sent Bickford a text message that reads as follows:
We have had a busy day. Ralph my gut is wrenching. Yesterday I went down to talk to40
Cal face to face. I wanted to face not handling the situation correctly. Cal’s version of
‘we’re good’ is you settle up, then we can use you if and when we need to bring
people in from out of town. Not starting back in with us on Monday. He still has local
people calling and asking if they can get on the show. All these points he was making I
had to agree with. I have not answered your calls because I have been trying to face45
telling you that I have to make this right. That’s what Cal expects. This has really
been bringing me down. I don’t want to hurt my friend, but we didn’t handle it the
right way. I’m sorry.
Bickford testified after he received the text message, he tried to call Conner and when he 50
eventually reached him on May 6 or 7, Conner “basically told me that he had to let me go and
JD–15–15
28
that I was not able to – I was not able to come back, you know, on Monday like I had planned.”
Bickford testified that Conner hired and fired him. Bickford testified that no one from the
Employer commented on his job performance. Bickford testified that during the conversation
Conner stated Hazelbaker told him he had to bring in the local guys first, and if there was
anything left over after everybody in the Union was working, then Bickford might be able to5
get in on the movie. Upon clarification, Bickford testified that, during the call, Conner used the
term “local guys,” that Conner did not use the word residents, and he did not use the word
Union. Bickford testified Conner did not talk to him about residency.
Similarly, Conner testified that, after he sent Bickford the May 6, text message he had a 10
phone conversation with Bickford. Conner testified that Bickford talked about maybe leaving the
job for a while and coming back possibly in another department. Conner said that was up to him
because Conner could not force him on another department. Conner testified that Bickford did
not want to leave the job stating, “He was looking for other ways to solve it, ….” Conner
testified he was asking Bickford to leave the position, and in fact, Conner had previously 15
informed a co-worker that he was going to terminate Bickford. Conner testified that, “We
talked about the fact that he had said that he would step away if it was going to get me in
trouble. I felt like I was in trouble. So we basically just hashed through all these things, and
then Ralph came to the realization that I was asking him to leave, and he accepted that.”
20
On June 18, Conner sent an email to a Board agent confirming and adding to a memo of
Conner’s prior conversation about what had transpired with that Board agent. In the email,
Conner stated, in part:
Near the completion of the 1st week you got your first phone call from the Union, Cal 25
Hazelbaker, the Local 38 BA. Cal asked me why I was hiring off-roster. He said there
are still people in town that are looking for work. I was also told that Bickford owed
money to Local 38. I told Cal that I had no idea that Bickford was not current with his
Local 38 membership and up to date. Cal did not tell me to get rid of Bickford he just
said it was a problem that I hired off-roster when there were local members looking for 30
work, and that Bickford was not in good standing with Local 38. When an employee is
coming to work on another card he is supposed to contact the Local Union as a formality
to gain permission, in some Locals the outside member can talk to his BA and he calls
the union where the work is being sought, and the 2 BAs talk to each other to ok the
member going to another local.35
I was told that when Bickford left Local 38 to move to Las Vegas, he did not leave on
good terms and with no apparent plans to return. I was also told that I should have
checked the roster to verify Ralph was indeed a Local 33 member and that I should have
made a call to the hall myself to let them know who I am hiring.
After I talked to Cal, I talked to Bickford. We talked about the misunderstanding. I 40
told him all the things that Cal had told me. I told him we had both done things
improperly. I told him that I needed to do the right thing here. I told him it was not right
for him to work ahead of other members if he was not in good standing with Local 38.
Bickford told me the last thing he wanted was for me to get in trouble over this. He said
he would call Cal and see if he could fix things. After talking to Cal, Bickford told me that 45
he needed to pay the money that was owed and then he would be able to work. In an
additional conversation with Cal, I still felt like the situation needed to be corrected.
Bickford's conversations with Cal seem to go ok but I still felt very much in trouble and
that I had done things improperly.
After Bickford left to go on his vacation, I went down to talk to Cal face to face. We 50
revisited all the points of the hiring procedures and I further admitted that I had done
JD–15–15
29
things incorrectly. I told him that Bickford is under the impression that if he pays his
money owed, he would be good to continue working. Cal clarified that Bickford, upon
paying money owed would be able to work, if and when we needed extra guys beyond
our local roster of qualified members. Cal told me if Ralph had special talents that I
could not find locally that might be different but I admitted that I could try members that I 5
had not worked with first.
I contacted Bickford to let that it was not a simple pay and return to work. I told him
that I needed to correct the situation, that I didn't want this kind of mistake to follow me.
We talked for awhile and Bickford realized I didn't want to but I was letting him go. We
talked about him waiting a few weeks to see if things got busier but I told him l thought it 10
would be better if he checked other departments for their needs and that my next call if I
needed to find labor would be to our office.
He agreed, he said he could make a big deal about it but he would not do that
because I was involved. But then a few weeks later I found out he filed this charge
against the Union.15
Since Bickford's departure, the local member that was filling in for him has continued
as part of my base crew and any additional hires have been available members needing
the work.
On July 8, Conner emailed Bickford where Conner stated, in part: 20
Ralph,
This is absolutely the worst work situation I have ever been in.
Whatever solution comes to the situation, I do not know anyone involved that I will not
either be in trouble with or have caused trouble for. That list includes You, Local 38, The
Rigging Electric Dept., The Set Decorating Dept., Local 38 legal representatives, 25
National Labor Relations, Crown City Pictures, and Warner Bros. Labor Relations.
* * *
I then talked to Rigging Electric about the current situation and what Warner Bros.
said. I have been working with the same three guys, I like all of them, and they all seem
pretty happy working for me and that is what is allotted to me. I would not think it right to 30
displace any of them. Also, thinking back, none of them had the expectation to work for
me. I have also had two members contact me recently about being available. That sort
of takes me all the way back to the beginning. Shouldn’t they be given the next
opportunity. Rigging Electric said they can find you a spot but would be unsure of the
duration, I admitted to them that I would not feel comfortable working with you. This 35
whole thing is not sitting well with me, my self image, my choices, and our friendship.
Coming back, we would both be surrounded by a lot of WTFs, especially after I’ve
already had to try to explain why you aren’t here anymore.
Rigging Electric, suggested I contact you...
40
It is clear from Conner and Bickford’s testimony and Conner’s writings that he
terminated Bickford because Bickford was not a member of Local 38. Thus, after Hazelbaker
first spoke with Conner on May 2, Conner testified he informed Bickford that, although Bickford
had informed Conner that Bickford was good with the union, Local 38 was telling Conner that
Bickford was not current with his membership, that he owed money, and this had put Conner in 45
a bad situation. Similarly, Bickford testified Conner called Bickford and said Conner had just
gotten off the phone with Hazelbaker. He testified Conner said Hazelbaker had chewed
Conner out because Conner hired Bickford in the position of fixtures, and Conner said to
Bickford that, “I thought that you said that you were okay with the union?“ Bickford testified
Conner said that Hazelbaker said Bickford was not a member. Bickford said he never said he 50
was a member of Local 38, that he was a member of Local 720. Bickford testified Conner was
JD–15–15
30
worried about his reputation with Local 38; and Bickford told Conner that Bickford would call
Hazelbaker and see what Bickford could work out. Bickford testified when he spoke to
Hazelbaker, Bickford expressed a concern as to whether Conner was ok with Local 38. I have
concluded Bickford was echoing this concern to Hazelbaker as it had been expressed to him by
Conner.5
Thus, after meeting with Hazelbaker faced to face on May 5, Conner texted Bickford,
stating, “Ralph my gut is wrenching. Yesterday I went down to talk to Cal face to face. I
wanted to face not handling the situation correctly. Cal’s version of ‘we’re good’ is you settle
up, then we can use you if and when we need to bring people in from out of town. Not10
starting back in with us on Monday. He still has local people calling and asking if they can get
on the show.” Conner testified that following the text message he had a phone call with
Bickford, in which, “We talked about the fact that he had said that he would step away if it was
going to get me in trouble. I felt like I was in trouble.”
15
Conner testified that he had a second call with Hazelbaker on May 2, and Conner
testified that based on his discussions with Hazelbaker that Conner thought things were not
good that what Conner had done was wrong and that Conner needed to fix the situation. When
asked what he thought he had done wrong, Conner testified pertaining to Bickford , “Hiring him
in front of 38 members.” Conner testified that his second call with Hazelbaker was similar to 20
the first in that Conner was told he should have checked the roster and verified whether or not
Bickford was a member. Conner was even more forthcoming in his June 18, email to the
Board agent, wherein he stated:
Near the completion of the 1st week you got your first phone call from the Union, Cal 25
Hazelbaker, the Local 38 BA. Cal asked me why I was hiring off-roster. He said there
are still people in town that are looking for work. I was also told that Bickford owed
money to Local 38. I told Cal that I had no idea that Bickford was not current with his
Local 38 membership and up to date. Cal did not tell me to get rid of Bickford he just
said it was a problem that I hired off-roster when there were local members looking for 30
work, and that Bickford was not in good standing with Local 38. When an employee is
coming to work on another card he is supposed to contact the Local Union as a formality
to gain permission, in some Locals the outside member can talk to his BA and he calls
the union where the work is being sought, and the 2 BAs talk to each other to ok the
member going to another local.35
I was told that when Bickford left Local 38 to move to Las Vegas, he did not leave on
good terms and with no apparent plans to return. I was also told that I should have
checked the roster to verify Ralph was indeed a Local 33 member and that I should have
made a call to the hall myself to let them know who I am hiring.
After I talked to Cal, I talked to Bickford. We talked about the misunderstanding. I told 40
him all the things that Cal had told me. I told him we had both done things improperly. I
told him that I needed to do the right thing here. I told him it was not right for him to work
ahead of other members if he was not in good standing with Local 38.
To this end, Conner also testified that Hazelbaker’s Teamster remark during their initial call 45
while “said in a joking way,” “stuck in my head as to why I acted the way I did as result.”
Thus, I have concluded that Hazelbaker’s intervention intimidated and coerced Conner
into terminating Bickford. In this regard, Conner was a Local 38 member, who was on the
Union’s referral list, and as such was dependent on Local 38 for future employment. I also 50
find that, while Respondent’s counsel led Conner into stating that preferential employment of
JD–15–15
31
Local 38 members was a result of his own personal beliefs, that this statement was not worthy
of belief. In this regard, Conner knew that Bickford was not a Local 38 member on Friday,
May 2, but he did not seek to terminate Bickford until he met with Hazelbaker on May 5, and
was given a lesson in the procedures he had to follow, per Hazelbaker’s perspective in terms
of hiring, as well as being told by Hazelbaker that Bickford was not to return to work the 5
following Monday. Conner testified that Hazelbaker “said that when Ralph pays his dues up,
that doesn't mean he has 38 status or that he's once again a 38 member, and he said that
also when Ralph came back after he paid his back owed money that he could go on an
available status, but it would be if and when we needed to use somebody from out of town;
he shouldn't expect to be coming right back to work that following Monday after his vacation.” 10
I therefore find that it was specifically at Hazelbaker’s behest that Conner removed
Bickford from the job, and that Conner did so because Bickford was not a member of Local 38,
but a traveler from Local 720. I find Bickford’s removal from the job was because of his union
membership status and would be found to be violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, but for the 15
fact that the Employer reached a settlement agreement with the Region over the matter prior to
the hearing.
I also find the Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
Hazelbaker’s actions in having Bickford pulled off the job.9 In this regard, Conner credibly 20
testified Hazelbaker’s call to Conner was about Bickford’s membership status with Local 38, as
opposed to Bickford’s residency, stating he was not even sure Bickford’s residency was
discussed. Respondent tried to cast Hazelbaker’s contact with Conner by contending that
Hazelbaker was merely seeking to have people hired who were Michigan residents pursuant to
a state statute. However, I do not find this position persuasive. I find Conner’s June 18 email to 25
the Board agent most accurately depicts his conversations with Hazelbaker. Conner testified he
edited the email on his own. Moreover, Conner testified it was his understanding following two
phone calls and a face to face meeting with Hazelbaker that the problem with Bickford’s
employment was he was not a Local 38 member. Conner, who impressed me as a bright
individual, did not come away with that conclusion based on a misunderstanding of what 30
Hazelbaker was trying to convey to him. Rather, I have concluded Conner’s conclusion was a
result of what Hazelbaker said and meant to say. I am also not persuaded by the Union’s
tendering its then current referral list with Hazelbaker’s testimony that some on the list were not
members of Local 38. In this regard, the list contained a large amount of names, and there was
no identification of which individuals were supposedly not Local 38 members, or any 35
identification as to whether the non-members amounted to a significant number on the list.
More compelling was the fact, that Bickford was replaced by a Local 38 member, and Conner
subsequently wrote Bickford stating that Local 38 members should be given preference in hiring
on the job. I am convinced that Conner obtained this principle from Hazelbaker by direct
statement as opposed to any misunderstanding. While Conner stated in his June 18 email that 40
no one asked him to terminate Bickford, the case law states a direct request does not need to
be made for a violation to be found. Moreover, I find that Hazelbaker’s telling Conner that
Bickford could not return to the job following his vacation to constitute a direct request.

9 While the complaint did not allege Respondent’s conduct violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, I find Section 8(b)(1)(A) in the context of this case is a derivative violation of Section 8(b(2)
of the Act, that the matter has been fully litigated, and therefore I find a Section 8(b)(1)(A)
violation as requested by counsel for the General Counsel in her post-hearing brief. See, Postal
Workers, 350 NLRB 219, 222 (2007); Jacoby v. NLRB, 233 F.3d 611, 618 (D.C. Cir. 2000);
NLRB v. Iron Workers Union, Local 433, 767 F.2d 1438, 1440 (9th Cir. 1985); and H.C.
Macaulay Foundry Co., 223 NLRB 815, 821, fn. 8 (1976).
JD–15–15
32
I have also considered that in a position statement to the Region, dated June 23, 2014,
signed by Respondent’s counsel and copied to Hazelbaker, Respondent argued Bickford was
terminated because “Movie production employers would find Bickford’s vacation unacceptable
on a fast-moving and intense job.” It was stated, “At some point, Hazelbaker casually remarked 5
to Conner that Bickford had outstanding dues obligations. Hazelbaker did not ask Conner to
engage in any improper or illegal activity.” It was stated that, “When Bickford went on vacation,
Conner hired someone else. Conner did not fire Bickford because of Cal’s remark. Conner
made an employer-based decision to fill a position that Bickford left.” Despite Respondent’s
position at trial that Hazelbaker in his contacts with Conner was attempting to enforce a 10
preference for the hiring of local residents, such argument is noticeably absent from the position
statement. Moreover, what was downplayed as a “casual remark” about dues in the position
statement was actually the subject of two phone calls and a face to face meeting between
Conner and Hazelbaker, the latter sought by Conner who was intimidated by Hazelbaker’s prior
contacts. Finally, Bickford was not discharged by Conner by for taking a pre-approved vacation. 15
Conner, as I have found discharged Bickford because he was not a member of Local 38, after
Hazelbaker’s intervention caused him to do so. I find Respondent’s claim at the hearing that
Hazelbaker intervened because Bickford was not a local resident to constitute a belated shifting
defense further revealing the pretextual nature of Respondent’s position.10
20
E. The Compliance Specification
In St. George Warehouse, 353 NLRB 497, 501 (2008),11 the following principles were set
forth:
25
To be entitled to backpay, a discriminatee must make reasonable efforts to secure
interim employment. The discriminatee must put forth an honest, good-faith effort to find
interim work; the law does not require that the search be successful. Doubts,
uncertainties, or ambiguities are resolved against the wrongdoing respondent.
Midwestern Personnel Services, 346 NLRB 624, 625 (2006) (citations omitted).30
Even though a discriminatee must attempt to mitigate her loss of income, the
discriminatee is held only to a reasonable rather than to the highest standard of
diligence. Minette Mills, Inc., 316 NLRB 1009, 1010 (1995).
***
Similarly, in United States Can Co., 328 NLRB 334, 337 (1999), enfd. 254 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 35
2001), it was stated that:

10 I find Respondent’s reference to an internal requirement that Bickford should have sought
Hazelbaker’s approval before seeking work at a traveler, and Hazelbaker informing Conner of
such was further evidence of Hazelbaker’s attempt to unlawfully interfere with Bickford’s
employment because of his status as a traveler and lack of membership in Local 38. See,
Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423, 428-429 (1969); Bricklayers Local No. 1 (Mason Contractors
Assn.), 308 NLRB 350 (1992) (finding a violation of the Act by a union’s preventing employment
by refusing to issue a traveler a work permit); Laborer’s, Local No. 721, 246 NLRB 691, 693
(1979); and Pittsburgh Press, Co., 241 NLRB 666 (1979). I also note that, while Hazelbaker
testified there was such a rule in the IATSE’s international constitution, the written rule was not
introduced into evidence.
11 The Board’s was reversed by the court due to a lack of a quorum at the Board, but when a
quorum was achieved at the Board it approved its decision which was enforced. See, St.
George Warehouse, 355 NLRB 474 (2010), enfd 645 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2011).
JD–15–15
33
It should be noted, however, that a backpay claimant is not held to the highest standard
of diligence in seeking interim employment, but is only required to have made
reasonable exertions. Thus, an employer does not satisfy its burden showing that no
mitigation took place because the claimant was unsuccessful in obtaining interim
employment, by showing an absence of a job application by the claimant during a 5
particular quarter or quarters of a backpay period, or by showing the claimant failed to
follow certain practices in his job search, e.g., reading and responding to job
advertisements in newspapers. S.E. Nichols of Ohio, 258 NLRB 1, 11 (1984). Finally,
any uncertainties or ambiguities must be resolved against the wrongdoer whose conduct
made such doubts possible. Teamsters Local 469 (Coastal Tank Lines), 323 NLRB No. 10
23 (1997).
In Kawasaki Motors, 282 NLRB 159, 160 (1986), enfd. 850 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1988), the
judge, with Board approval, took into account the stigma of an employee's discriminatory
discharge from the respondent employer in evaluating the bonafides of his job search. In 15
Amshu Associates, Inc., 234 NLRB 791, 794 (1978), it was held that a discriminatee made
reasonably diligent search to secure work including reading want ads and responding by
telephone, consulting superintendents, friends, relatives, and the local union, registering with
state unemployment office, and making other inquiries. The Board has held that, in seeking
interim employment, a discriminatee need only follow his regular method for obtaining work. See 20
Tualatin Electric, Inc., 331 NLRB 36 (2000), enfd. 253 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (discriminatees
satisfied their obligation to mitigate when they followed their normal pattern of seeking
employment through the union's hiring hall). Long periods of unemployment or
underemployment do not necessarily equate to a showing of lack of reasonable diligence.
McKenzie Engineering, 336 NLRB 336, 344 (2001), enfd. 373 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2004).25
The General Counsel alleges in her brief the backpay period here is May 12 to
September 22, 2014, that is 5 days after the date Respondent sent a written notification to the
Employer stating it had no objection to Bickford’s reinstatement.12 In Miscellaneous Drivers and
Helpers Local 610, 236 NLRB 1048, 1048 fn. 1 (1978), enfd. 594 F.2d 1218 (8th Cir. 1979), the 30
Board stated in the 8(b)(2) context that a respondent union sending a letter to the employer and
the discriminatee informing them the union has no objection to the employer’s employment of
the discriminate is a prerequisite to end the union’s backpay liability. There the Board stated:
It is well-established Board law that for a union to effectively terminate its backpay 35
liability prior to a Board finding of an 8(b)(1)(A) or 8(b)(2) violation, the union's written
notification must be sent to both the employer and the employee. See United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Local 633 (Chicago Bridge and Iron Co.), 173 NLRB
1333 (1968); Westwood Plumbers, 131 NLRB 562 (1961).40
Here, in July 2014, Bickford received a phone call from Carroll, an attorney with Warner
Brothers, the Employer’s parent company, who told Bickford he could be reinstated as part of a
settlement agreement to the unfair labor practice charge filed against the Employer. Bickford
testified he told Carroll that he did not want to take reinstatement because the Union had not 45
signed off on it. Bickford testified when Carroll offered him reinstatement Bickford told Carroll
he did not feel comfortable and he did not think he was going to come back. Bickford testified, “I

12 The parties stipulated that May 12 was the date backpay, if any, should begin since that is
the date Bickford would have resumed work had he returned to the Employer following his
vacation.
JD–15–15
34
says, I haven’t been – I don’t want to come back with – first of all, I don’t have no guarantee
how long I would be there, and I says, and the Union hasn’t said that they would let me come
back. I says, so I’m not going to do the expense to come back out to Detroit from Las Vegas,
where I was currently at, with no guarantee that I would even be working.” Bickford testified
that through a series of phone calls with Carroll he negotiated a monetary settlement with the 5
Employer, which included 3 weeks backpay, working 12 hours per day, plus benefits for that
period of time. On July 25, Bickford signed a non-Board settlement with Crown City, which
provided in part, in exchange for Bickford withdrawing his unfair labor practice charge against
Crown City that Crown City would pay to Bickford the equivalent of 3 weeks back pay calculated
on a 12 hour day for a total of $6,346.20 with corresponding benefits paid to the IATSE national 10
health plan in the amount of $1,110.00 and the Local 38 Pension Fund in the amount of
$555.00. Bickford testified he was offered reinstatement by the Employer in July as part of the
settlement agreement. He testified he did not accept the position. Bickford testified that in
September he received a letter from Local 38, which had been forwarded by the Region stating
that the Union did not have an objection to his returning to work. 15
Given the fact that the Union had not notified the Employer or Bickford in July that it had
no objection to his reinstatement, I find that Bickford’s backpay claim should not be terminated
by the Employer’s July reinstatement offer in particular considering Bickford’s circumstances at
the time. In this regard, on July 8, Conner, a member of Local 38, who had discharged Bickford 20
had sent Bickford an email containing the following remarks:
I have been working with the same three guys, I like all of them, and they all seem pretty
happy working for me and that is what is allotted to me. I would not think it right to
displace any of them. Also, thinking back, none of them had the expectation to work for 25
me. I have also had two members contact me recently about being available. That sort
of takes me all the way back to the beginning. Shouldn’t they be given the next
opportunity. Rigging Electric said they can find you a spot but would be unsure of the
duration, I admitted to them that I would not feel comfortable working with you. This
whole thing is not sitting well with me, my self image, my choices, and our friendship. 30
Coming back, we would both be surrounded by a lot of WTFs, especially after I’ve
already had to try to explain why you aren’t here anymore.
I find that Conner’s attitude to Bickford’s reinstatement, and his remarks were caused by
Hazelbaker’s conduct. Thus, the Employer’s offer of reinstatement was premised on Bickford 35
returning to a hostile work environment with a job of uncertain duration. That attitude and
Conner’s statement were a direct result of the unfair labor practices committed by Hazelbaker
which had not been remedied at the time of Bickford’s offer of reinstatement as the Union had
sent no notice to Bickford or the Employer that did not object to his reinstatement. Accordingly, I
find that at the time the Employer offered Bickford reinstatement that offer was tainted by the 40
Union’s unremedied unfair labor practices, and therefore Bickford’s rejection of that offer did not
terminate the Respondent’s continuing backpay obligation to Bickford.13

13 Respondent’s reliance on Krist Oil Co., Inc., 328 NLRB 825, 827 (1999), in its brief is
unconvincing. In this regard, that case only involved unfair labor practice allegations against an
employer in evaluating the employer’s offers of reinstatement. It did not, unlike here, involve
unremedied unfair labor practices against a union that precipitated the unlawful discharge.
There, the Board stated, “an unlawfully discharged employee is privileged to reject an offer of
reinstatement, and preserve his ongoing entitlement to reinstatement and backpay, where he
has a reasonable fear of further discrimination against him. [FN7]” See at fn. 7, “Domsey
Trading Corp., 310 NLRB 777, 777-778 fn.3, 800 (1993), enfd. 16 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1994); see
JD–15–15
35
The Union sent the Employer a letter dated August 6, stating it did not object to
Bickford’s reinstatement. The letter was sent to the address listed for the Employer on the
amended charge filed by Bickford on June 30. The letter was copied to Region 7, but it was not
sent directly to Bickford. The initial complaint issued on August 29, containing a different 5
address for the Employer than the one listed on the amended charge. On September 17, the
Union sent out a new letter to the Employer at the address listed on the complaint wherein it
stated it did not object to Bickford’s reinstatement. By its terms the letter was copied to the
Region and to Bickford at the Michigan address listed in Bickford’s employment application.
First, it must be said that by the time the Local 38 had sent its August 6 letter Bickford had 10
already rejected and waived future reinstatement from the Employer. On the other hand, the
circumstances of Bickford’s rejection of employment were fostered by the Union’s uncured unfair
labor practices the consequences of which should be borne by Local 38, not Bickford. The
Union’s August 6 letter was also defective per the Board’s remedial requirements as it was sent
to the wrong address for the Employer and it was not sent directly to Bickford. As to the address 15
for the Employer, it was the Union’s responsibility to ensure its letter was properly served. The
Union was able to contact the Employer when it was in its interest to do so, as Hazelbaker
testified he served the Employer with a copy of Local 38’s referral list before the Employer
began operations. Hazelbaker was also able to phone Conner shortly after Bickford began his
employment resulting in Bickford’s termination. Finally, it is elemental Board law in a backpay 20
proceeding that any ambiguity is resolved against the wrongdoer not the wronged discriminatee.
Thus, I have no problem finding the backpay period here, did not end at a minimum until the
service of Local 38’s September 17 letter, as contended by the General Counsel.14

Woodline Motor Freight, 278 NLRB 1141 (1986), enfd. in pertinent part 843 F.2d 285 (8th Cir.
1988).” Here, prior to executing the settlement agreement with the Employer, Bickford received
an email from Conner stating that the employee who replaced Bickford would not be terminated
in order to make room for Bickford, that Bickford who had been discharged from a position
where he could reasonably expect at least 6 to 9 months employment which was significant in
that industry, was also told by Conner that the job Conner could find for him may only be of
short duration, that union members should be hired before Bickford, and that Conner, a Local 38
member did not want to work with him. Given the fact, that the Union did not meet its
notification requirement at the time to the Employer and Bickford that it did not object to his
reinstatement to his former position, I find that Bickford had a reasonable basis to reject the
reinstatement offer as extended to him, and that his doing so did not terminate the Local 38’s
ongoing backpay liability to him.
14 I do not find Burnup & Sims, Inc., 256 NLRB 965 (1981), cited by the Respondent to be
persuasive. There, the Board found a respondent employer’s reinstatement offer letter was
made in good faith as it was mailed to the only address the employee had ever provided to the
employer. The address was contained on the employee’s employment application, and other
employment related documents the employee had filed with the employer. The address was
printed on the employee’s paycheck which the employee regularly received from the employer
and used 2 months earlier for a registered letter that the employer had successfully sent to the
employee. The Board specifically noted that there was no showing that the employer had
alternative means for communicating with the employee as the employee listed on his
employment application that he had no phone. Here, Local 38’s August 6 letter was not sent
directly to Bickford as the Union was required to do. Moreover, the copy sent to the Employer
was sent to the wrong address although the Union had an ongoing relationship with that
Employer, and the record reveals it had previously communicated with that Employer by phone
and correspondence. I therefore find, as set forth above that the error in Local 38’s initial
mailing to the Employer should fall on Local 38, not on Bickford.
JD–15–15
36
Bickford testified he looked for work after his discharge from Crown City. Bickford
testified that, during the first 2 weeks after his discharge, he made calls to different industry
contacts. Bickford testified he also checked for jobs on Craig’s list to see if there was anything
in Michigan. Bickford testified the contacts he checked with were different people who he has 5
worked with over the years who he thought might have jobs coming up. Bickford testified that
is typically how he finds work. Bickford testified that, following his termination, he stayed in
Michigan until about the middle or end of July and then he drove back to Nevada. Bickford
testified that between May and the third week in July he could not find any jobs in Michigan.
10
Bickford testified that following the initial 2 weeks after his termination from Crown City,
he continued to seek work. He testified, “I was constantly calling people that I knew from LA
and also back in Las Vegas to see whether there was any work available at the time.” He
test i f ied he was not able to get any employment. Bickford named a gaffer in Los Angeles,
who he contacted, as well as two people in Las Vegas seeking employment. Bickford testified 15
he also contacted a named camera man-producer in Detroit. Bickford testified that in Las
Vegas, Local 702 has a dispatch system for referring stage hands to convention centers.
Bickford testified he placed his name back on Local 720’s rotation list for referrals to work
within the first two weeks of when he came back from vacation for Sage & Milo, which was May
9.15 Bickford testified he did not go back to Las Vegas at that time but he called Local 720 to see 20
if there was work and he put his name on the out of work list.
Bickford testified that he applied for work through Roger Haggart in Michigan, making
multiple calls to him because he had productions in town. Bickford testified he looked on the
Internet and made several phone calls to friends in Los Angeles working on movies to see 25
whether he could get work. Bickford testified this was from the date he was fired from Sage &
Milo until he went back to Las Vegas. He testified he was probably making 15 calls each
month mostly to a friend in Los Angeles Mike Kelly. Bickford testified he did not look for any
basic electrician jobs in Nevada or Michigan because he is not licensed to do basic
electrician’s work which is permanent in nature, whereas the production work he does is 30
temporary. Bickford testified the only place he went on the internet looking for work was
Craig’s list after his discharge. Bickford testified that in the past that he had only received one
job through Craig’s list. He testified the reason he does not go after jobs on Craig’s list is
because they are low paying jobs, but after he was terminated from Sage and Milo, he was
desperate for work, and would take anything he could get. Bickford testified that the Region 35
did not tell him to keep track of the jobs he applied for, and Bickford did not keep a log of his job

15 Bickford testified he did not put his name on Local 38’s job list for being available for work
because they would not let him work for the Sage & Milo, so he thought they would not
dispatch him on any other jobs as an extra. I find that Bickford was justified in this position. I
have concluded that Local 38 unlawfully caused Bickford’s discharge from the Employer and
Hazelbaker warned Conner the soonest Bickford would be able to be hired was when all locals
had been employed. I have concluded this was a reference to Local 38 members as discussed
above. As of July 8, Conner was still informing Bickford that he did not want to bring him back
because there were two Local 38 members seeking employment and they should have
preference over Bickford. Moreover, in its September 17 letter to Bickford, Local 38 although
stating to the Employer that it did not object to his reinstatement, still refused to acknowledge
that it had committed any unfair labor practices towards Bickford. I have concluded that given
the circumstances here, Bickford reasonably concluded that since Local 38 had him terminated
because of his traveler and non membership status pertaining to Local 38, that it would have
been a futile act to seek further employment through Local 38.
JD–15–15
37
search during the back pay period. He testified he did not go any place and put in an
application. He testified he does not obtain work from applications so he did not send any out.
Bickford testified the first time he went to work after Sage & Milo was when he worked a
half day at the Sands Convention Center during the second week of August 2014. Bickford 5
testified that after the work at the Sands Convention Center he did not get any other calls
through Local 720 until the end of September. He testified the Sands job came from Local 720.
Bickford testified he was working at the time of his testimony. He testified he was doing
freelance in that he is getting calls from Local 720. Bickford testified he started working
freelance around the middle or end of September until he had to travel to Detroit for the trial. 10
The testimony revealed that work on Sage and Milo was sought after because it was a
fairly lengthy assignment. The testimony revealed that in this industry that it was not uncommon
for employees to have down time while they are seeking work. Moreover, Bickford received the
job on Sage & Milo through his calls to contacts, which he credibly testified was the way he 15
customarily conducted a job search for the industry in which he worked. He credibly testified
that he engaged in such a search beginning shortly after his unlawful termination from Sage &
Milo, as well as placed his name on Local 720’s referral list. Seeking work in the fashion he
customarily sought it was all he was required to do, and I have concluded that Respondent has
failed to establish that Bickford did not make a reasonable job search during the backpay 20
period. See, Amshu Associates, Inc., 234 NLRB 791, 794 (1978); and Tualatin Electric, Inc.,
331 NLRB 36 (2000), enfd. 253 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2001). See also, Black Magic Resources,
Inc., 317 NLRB 721, 722 (1995), where the Board reversed the judge and found in the
circumstances there an employee’s registering with the state unemployment for job referrals
although he received no referrals, combined with his contacts with family members, friends and25
acquaintances, along with his seeking work at area farms was a sufficient job search to qualify
for backpay although the employee never filled out a written application. I do not put much
stock in Respondent’s argument that Bickford’s returning to Las Vegas should somehow
disqualify him for backpay. There was no showing that the job market for someone with a work
history and skills such as Bickford’s was worse in Las Vegas than it was in Detroit. Moreover, 30
Bickford was able to make use of Local 720’s referral system in Las Vegas, something for which
I have concluded he reasonably believed he was foreclosed from doing in Detroit due to
Hazelbaker’s unfair labor practices.
Conner credibly testified that Bickford’s replacement shortly after his employment began 35
worked 12 hours shifts, was paid for all holidays pursuant to the collective-bargaining
agreement during the backpay period and left on his own volition at a time after the backpay
period had ended.16 Accordingly, since the parties are in agreement as to the pay rates, and
benefit contributions required by the collective-bargaining agreement during the backpay period,
as well as the starting date for the backpay period beginning May 12, and noting that no 40
additional interim earnings than those accounted for have been demonstrated, I find that
Bickford is entitled to the backpay amount set forth in the backpay specification, as amended,

16 Conner testified the employees who continued to work for him in fixtures after Bickford
was gone started at 10 hours a day and then in about 2 or 3 three weeks went to 12 hours a
day. Conner testified that once they went to 12 hours they never went below that. However,
Bickford testified that he worked 12 hours a day for the week he worked, and the settlement
agreement signed by the Employer stated Bickford was compensated for 12 hours a day for the
weeks covered by the settlement. Accordingly, I have concluded that the amended backpay
specification correctly calls for compensation at the rate of 12 hours a day for the duration of the
backpay period.
JD–15–15
38
with the exception that backpay calculations shall begin on May 12, not May 6 as provided in
GC Exh. 2, which otherwise contain the most current amendments to the specification.17 In this
regard, for the reasons set forth above, I have found, as argued by the General Counsel that
Respondent’s backpay liability ended on September 22, 5 days after Respondent sent is
September 17 letter to Bickford and the Employer stating, as it was required to do, that 5
Respondent had no objections to Bickford’s reinstatement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Crown City Pictures, Inc., (Crown City) is an employer engaged in commerce within the 10
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 38, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture
Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE),
AFL-CIO (Local 38) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By causing Crown City to terminate Ralph Bickford on May 6, 2014, because he was not 15
a member of Local 38, for reasons other than the lawful application of a contractual union
security clause, Local 38 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
4. The forgoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
20
REMEDY
Having found that Local 38 has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, Local 38 must
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. I have found that Local 38 caused Crown City to terminate Bickford on May
6, 2014, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Therefore, Local 38 is required to 25
make Bickford whole, plus interest for its unfair labor practices, with the backpay period running
for Bickford running from May 12 to September 22, 2014. The unfair labor practice trial in this
case was combined with a compliance proceeding pertaining to Bickford’s backpay.
Concerning the compliance aspect of the case, I have determined that Bickford is owed by
Local 38 the amount of $34,460.16 in net backpay; and that Local 38 is obligated to pay $611030
in health and welfare contributions in Bickford’s behalf; and $2960 in pension contributions in
Bickford’s behalf to the benefit funds specified by the collective-bargaining agreement in effect
during the backpay period.18 Local 38, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall pay
Bickford the amounts specified, plus interest accrued to the date of payment, as prescribed in
New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River 35
Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State
laws. Interest shall also be added to the monies owed to the funds using the same formula to

17 GC Exh. 2 lists backpay of $1,269.24, and health care and pension contributions totaling
$333 for the week ending May 10. It asserts a net backpay due to Bickford of $35,729.40 using
May 6 as the starting date. However, since the parties agree that the starting date is May 12, I
have revised the net backpay to equal $34,460.16. Similarly, I have reduced the claimed health
and welfare contribution amounts by 4 days at $74 a day, $296, thereby reducing $6406 total
list to $6110. Finally, I am reducing the requested pension contribution by 4 days at $37 a day
or $148, or $3108 minus $148 equals $2960.
18 There was a pre-hearing settlement between Bickford and Crown City for which Bickford
received a certain amount of backpay from the Employer and for which the Employer also made
certain fund contributions in Bickford’s behalf. The sums paid by the Employer were deducted
from the total amounts calculated to be owed by Local 38 to Bickford in deriving the net backpay
and fund contributions currently owed by Local 38 as set forth above.
JD–15–15
39
calculate interest, but no withholdings are to be deducted. I shall also order that Local 38 cease
and desist in any like or related manner from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the 5
following recommended19
ORDER
A. Local 38, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture
Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE), 10
AFL-CIO (Local 38) its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause employers including Crown City Pictures, Inc.,
(Crown City) to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing the employees of Crown City in the 15
exercise of their rights protected by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the Act:
(a) Make Ralph Bickford whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits, plus interest,
suffered as a result of Bickford’s May 6, 2014, termination of employment from Crown City.20
(b) Post at its offices, hiring halls, and at any Crown City location where Local 38 is
permitted to post notices copies of the attached notice. Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall be posted by Local 38 after being signed
by Local 38’s authorized representative immediately upon receipt thereof. The notices shall be
maintained by Local 38 for 60 consecutive days after posting in conspicuous places where 25
notices to the above-described members and employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Local 38 to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as by e-mail, posting on an intranet and/or other electronic
means, if the Local 38 customarily communicates with its members and/or employees of Crown 30
City by such means. Finally, because there is testimony that the production was winding down,
Local 38 shall, at its expense, be required to mail a signed copy of the Notice to Bickford, as
well as to all Local 38 members who worked on the Sage & Milo production on or after May 6,
2014.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn 35
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
Local 38 has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 18, 2015.40
_______________________
Eric M. Fine
Administrative Law Judge45

19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended 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.
JD–15–15
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES
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 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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Crown City Pictures, Inc., or any other
employer, to discriminate against employees because they are not members of Local 38, or
because they are members of other IATSE locals, in the absence of our lawful enforcement of a
valid union security clause.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce the employees of Crown
City Pictures, Inc., or any other employer, in the exercise of their rights protected by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL make Ralph Bickford whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits, plus
interest, suffered as a result of Bickford’s May 6, 2014, termination of employment from Crown
City Pictures, Inc..
WE WILL notify Crown City Pictures, Inc., and Ralph Bickford in writing that Local 38 has
no objection to Crown City Pictures, Inc., awarding Bickford his former position, or if that is not
available, a substantially equivalent position, displacing any employee, if necessary, occupying
that position.
LOCAL 38, INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF
THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, MOVING
PICTURE TECHNICIANS, ARTISTS AND ALLIED
CRAFTS OF THE UNITED STATES,ITS
TERRITORIES AND CANADA (IATSE), AFL-CIO
(Union)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD–15–15
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
477 Michigan Avenue, Federal Building, Room 300
Detroit, MI 48226-2569
(313) 226-3200, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07–CB–128512 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.
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 DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (313) 226-3244.