Local 644, IATSE

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1982

259 N.L.R.B. 1415 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

LOCAL 644, IATSE 1415
International Photographers of the Motion Picture find it unnecessary additionally to rely, as did the
Industries, Local No. 644 of the International Administrative Law Judge, on his finding that Re-
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and spondent had discriminatorily refused membership
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the t rtin
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and uren
James F. Maher, Esq., and King-Hitzig Produc-AMENDED REMEDY
tions, Party to the Contract and Jessica M.
Burstein, Party in Interest. Case 2-CB-7361 Having found that Respondent has violated Sec-
February 4, 1982 tion 8(b)(l)(A) and 8(b)(2) by requiring that it ap-
prove Burstein's presence on King-Hitzig's film set
DECISION AND ORDER and by subsequently causing King-Hitzig to
remove her from its payroll, we shall order that it
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND cease and desist therefrom and to take certain af-
ZIMMERMAN firmative action designed to effectuate the policies
On March 13, 1981, Administrative Law Judge of the Act. In accordance with our recent decisions
George F. McInerny issued the attached Decision in Iron Workers Local 118, International Association
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel of Bridge and Structural Ironworkers, AFL-CIO
and Respondent filed exceptions, supporting briefs, (Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company), 257 NLRB
and answering briefs. No. 78 (1981), and Sheet Metal Workers' Union
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Local 355, Sheet Metal Workers' International Asso-
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- ciation, AFL-CIO (Zinsco Electrical Products), 254
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- NLRB 773 (1981), we shall require that Respond-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel ent (1) make Jessica M. Burstein whole for all
The Board has considered the record and the at-its suffered as a result oflosses of wages and benefits suffered as a result of
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and Respondent's discrimination against her from the
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- Respondent's unlawful conduct until she isdate of Respondent's unlawful conduct until she isings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law . . . .
Judge ans modified hereof the Ade Lw reinstated by King-Hitzig to her former or substan-
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- tially equivalent position or until she obtains sub-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and 8(b)(2) of stantially equivalent employment elsewhere;3 (2)
the Act in July 1978. We agree for the following notify King-Hitzig in writing, with a copy to Jessi-
reasons. As the Administrative Law Judge found, ca M. Burstein, that it has no objection to her
Respondent tabled Jessica M. Burstein's application hiring or employment; and (3) affirmatively request
for membership in April 1978. In July 1978, it pres- that King-Hitzig hire her for the employment
sured King-Hitzig Productions, a firm which which she would have had were it not for Re-
wished to hire Burstein, first, to seek Respondent's spondent's unlawful conduct, or for substantially
approval for Burstein to work on a film as a non- equivalent employment.
union employee and, second, to hire a union still
photographer in place of Burstein. Respondent2photographer in place of Bursten. Rt 2 The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated
thereby interfered with the employment relation- sec. 8(bXIXA) in April 1978 by discriminatorily denying membership to
ship between Burstein and King-Hitzig because she Burstein. Respondent excepts to this conclusion, relying partly on the
was not a member while it simultaneously refused fact, as noted by the Administrative Law Judge, that there was no show-
ing that its conduct had an adverse impact on Burstein's employment in
to admit her to membership. These actions clearly April 1978. It also contends that the matter was not fully litigated, and
restrained and coerced Burstein in the exercise of notes that the General Counsel did not allege such a violation until his
her Section 7 rights and caused King-Hitzig to dis- post-hearing brief. We find it unnecessary to pass on the AdministrativeLaw Judge's finding of this additional violation since, in light of the
criminate against her with regard to her employ- other violations found herein and Burstein's subsequent admission to Re-
ment on a ground other than her refusal or failure spondent's membership, the finding of such an additional violation would
to tender union dues and fees. International Associ- not materially affect our Order.to tender union dues and fees. International Assocti- I Loss of earnings, if any, shall be computed in the manner set forth in
ation of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos F W Woolworth Company, 99 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon
Workers, Local No. 7, AFL (Seattle Construction computed in the manner set forth in Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB
Council, 92 NLRB 753, 763 (190). We the e 651 (1977). See, generally. Isis Plumbing d Heating C., 138 NLRB 716Council), 92 NLRB 753, 763 (1950). We therefore (1962).
We recognize that, due to the nature of employment in the film indus-
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the try, the facts of this case may present issues concerning the proper appli-
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to cation of the remedy herein. We leave the resolution of any such issues
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- to the compliance stage of these proceedings. In agreement with the Ad-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- ministrative Law Judge, we also leave to the compliance stage the deter-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. mination of the effect, if any. of a letter from Herbert Burslein, counsel
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have for Jessica M. Burstein, to the Administrative Law Judge, dated March
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 19, 1979.
259 NLRB No. 185
i l
f t e to Burstein. 2
AMENDED E E
February 4,
r r fr its r ll, s ll r r t t it
, t t t i f-
ZI E i ti
l

),
' t ti l -

),
, .
l o w nits lt
' i i i ti i t r fr t
ri f i , d '
i s,' l i t i i tr ti r b K-H to h f o s
Judge as modified herein. reinstated by King-Hitzig to her former or substan-
i l t siti r til s e tai s sub-
( )
i
c a M .
)
spondent--- ,_ , ,,photographer i.place in.Respondent
Wit S . l
W Si lt '
O Cle .
Coer
r
' aindin
Cri i Wit O
ent O round Ot han er O r
to tenderunion s a f . I t rntio l soci- not aterially affect our rder.O Uni c ° i , . t i t r t t i
tion Of eat nd rost nsulators nd n ),
ocal O. , FL Seattle onstruction r r ti .
/-* -»i m XTI r9r> ic-i in /i > \\i. .- er 6 77 ). . l ., t (1962).
'
,
. .
.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have also found, in agreement with the Ad- be violative of the Act, will be given no further
ministrative Law Judge, that Respondent violated force or effect.
Section 8(b)(l)(A) by maintaining in its contracts (c) Post at its offices and meeting rooms copies
union-security clauses which do not provide for the of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies
statutory 30-day waiting period before requiring of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
union membership. Since not all of the parties to Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by
Respondent's contracts are before us, however, we Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
shall not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
recommendation that Respondent be ordered to maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
revise the union-security provisions of its contracts. in conspicuous places, including all places where
Rather, we shall order Respondent to notify each notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
employer with whom it has a contract, by mailing sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
each a copy of the attached notice marked "Ap- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
pendix" that the provisions found herein to be vio- covered by any other material.
lative of the Act will be given no further force or (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region
effect. See American Guild of Variety Artists, AFL- 2 signed copies of the notice for posting by King-
CIO (Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation, d/b/a Fon- Hitzig Productions, if willing, in places where no-
tainebleau Hotel), 163 NLRB 457, 474 (1967). tices to employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in
ORDER writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- herewith.
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
International Photographers of the Motion Picture States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Industries, Local No. 644 of the International Alli- Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
ance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its APPENDIX
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from: NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
(a) Causing or attempting to cause King-Hitzig POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
Productions to cease paying Jessica M. Burstein for NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her work or otherwise discriminate against her be- An Agency of the United States Government
cause of her nonmembership in Respondent.
(b) Requiring King-Hitzig Productions to obtain Following a hearing at which all parties had an op-
permission from Respondent before allowing em- portunity to present evidence and cross-examine
ployees of King-Hitzig Productions on its sets or witnesses, the National Labor Relations Board has
filming locations. found that we violated the National Labor Rela-
(c) Maintaining in its contracts with producers of tions Act, and has ordered us to post and distribute
feature films and commercials union-security provi- this notice. We intend to abide by the following:
sions which do not provide the statutory 30-dayE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause
waiting period before requiring union membership. King-Hitzig Productions to cease paying Jessi-
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or ca Bustei for her work or otherwise dis-ca M. Burstein for her work or otherwise dis-
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights criminate against her because of her nonmem-
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is beh L King-Hitzig ProduWE WILL NOT require King-Hitzig Produc-
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: permission from Local No. 644tions to obtain permission from Local No. 644
(a) Make Jessica M. Burstein whole for all losses before allowing employees of King-Hitzig Pro-
of wages and benefits suffered as a result of its dis-
crimination against her in the manner set forth in d o s ss or fmg locion
the "Amended Remedy" herein. WE WILL NOT maintain in our contracts
the "Amended Remedy" her. with employers union-security provisions
(b) Notify all employers with which it has a col- wih epoers uioseurity provisios
which do not provide the statutory 30-daylective-bargaining agreement, by mailing each awc d o ro e e sutor -
copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix," before r uon member-
that the union-security provisions, found herein to ship
.
,
.
).
Pursuant to Section 10) of the National Labor what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the ational abor, . * * -h
Or . t t t t t i f r t f it
ational s O
rde r of the N a ional L abo r R la tions Boa rd "
O heatrical mployees oving or .
i i t i t t t t WE
aiti ri f r r iri i r i . i it i
( ) I a li e r relate anner restraining or ca . rst i f r
c erci l s i t r is f t ri t i i t
t t ti t t. b in L N
. t f ll i i ti ti i i W W N c-
ecessar t ff t t t li i s t t: t t a
( ) i . t i
f fit lt it d on i s oc
ri i ti i st r i t r s t f rt i W W Nn
the "Amend d Remedy" r i
E IL L O T m a l n t a l n *". o u r c o n t r a c t s
the "Amended Remedy" erei.. ,.with
( ) tif ll l r it i it l d n p th s tt ry -d
l ti - r i i r t, ili each w aiin d bore re unon 30-bay
p.
curit , i s .
LOCAL 644, IATSE 1417
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner and discriminatory. Respondent filed an answer in which
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of it denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Pursuant to notice accompanying the complaint herein,
Act. a hearing was held before me in new York, New York.2
WE WILL make Jessica M. Burstein whole, The hearing opened on February 27, 1979. At that time
with interest, for all losses of wages and bene- it appeared that the parties had arrived at an informal
fits suffered as a result of our discrimination settlement of the issues. The hearing was accordingly ad-
against her until she is either reinstated by journed until April 2, 1979. In the meantime the Union
against her until she is either reinstated by and Jessica Burstein worked out their differences. Miss
King-Hitzig Productions to her former or a Burstein was given full membership rights in the Union
substantially equivalent position or until she and, in a letter to me dated March 19, 1979, from her at-
obtains substantially equivalent employment torney and father, Herbert Burstein, stated that she
elsewhere. waived any remedy which the Board could ultimately
WE WILL affirmatively request that King- award. In addition, Mr. Burstein requested that I permit
Hitzig Productions hire Jessica M. Burstein for the instant charge to be withdrawn either in its entirety
the employment which she would have had or, alternatively, those portions of the charge alleging
were it not for our unlawful conduct, or for violations of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
substantially equivalent employment. On March 22, 1979, counsel for the Union wrote me a
WE WILL notify all employers with which letter setting forth a similar description of the agreement
we have collective-bargaining agreements that between Miss Burstein and the Union, and requesting
the union-security provisions found by the that I permit the charges in this case to be withdrawn.
Board to be violative of the Act will be given The General Counsel, in turn, sent me a telegram voic-
no further force or effect. ing his opposition to the proposed withdrawal on the
basis that the informal settlement did not settle "ques-
tions of closed shop practices" affecting "more than justINTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS OF an individual filing a charge at the Board." In addition,
THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRIES, the General Counsel mentioned that another charge had
LOCAL NO. 644 OF THE INTERNA- been filed with the New York Regional Office 3 which
TIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL might be consolidated with the instant case. 4
STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING The hearing resumed on April 2, 1979. At that time I
PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF denied the requests of the Union and the Charging Party
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, to withdraw the charges (and to dismiss all or part of the
AFL-CIO complaint).
The hearing was then adjourned, sine die,5 to allow the
DECISION Union to appeal my ruling to the Board. On July 20 the
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Union addressed a letter to the Board requesting permis-
sion to appeal from my decision. The General Counsel
GEORGE F. MCINERNY, Administrative Law Judge: duly filed an opposition to this request. The request was
On July 25, 1978, the charge in this case was filed by denied in a telegram from Associate Executive Secretary
James F. Maher.' The charge alleged that International George A. Leet.6
Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local Following receipt of the Board's ruling, and by agree-
No. 644 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage ment of the parties, the hearing resumed on September 7,
Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of 1979, at which time I reviewed with the parties subpenas
the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein re- issued by the General Counsel to Respondent and a peti-
ferred to as the Union, Local 644, or Respondent, had tion to revoke the subpenas filed by Respondent. I made
discriminated against Jessica Burstein in violation of Sec- a number of rulings on these matters and at the close of
tion 8(b)(X)(A), 8(b)(2), and 8(b)(5) of the National Labor the day adjourned the hearing, again sine die to allow the
Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 151, el seq., herein General Counsel to appeal those rulings, in the nstances
referred to as the Act.referred to as the Actebr3,17,teRg. onadverse to him, to the Board, and to move in the United
Thereafter, on September 13, 1978, the Regional Di-
reto r for Region S2 of the National Labor Relations States district court to enforce a subpena requiring Jessi-rector for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations ca Burstein to appear and testify in this matter.' The
Board, herein referred to as the Board, issued a com- Bursteinto appear and testify in this matter. The
plaint alleging that the Union had discriminated against Respondent's motion to correct he transcript is granted
Jessica Burstein by denying her the opportunity to be Case 2-CB-7742 (Warner Bros. Inc.)
employed by King-Hitzig Productions, herein referred to This did not happen. I am unaware of the disposition of Case 2-CB-
as King-Hitzig or the Employer, and by maintaining an 7742.
initiation fee which in all the circumstances is excessive At that time it seemed probable that an informal settlement between
the parties could be reached. It did not, however, work out.
6 The telegram noted that then Board Member Murphy would have
Maher is or was a lawyer employed in the firm of Zelby, Burstein, granted the appeal and approved the settlement.
Bernstein and Hartman. Herbert Burstein, a member of that firm, is the 'Miss Burstein had notified the General Counsel that she would not
father of Jessica M. Burstein, the Party in Interest in this case appear voluntarily and testify in this proceeding.

i . T h e ed
o n
ll
fit ff r s r lt f r i ri i ti ttl t f t i . ri r i l -
e il il 2 19 7 9. In t h e m e a n t e t h e o n
King-Hitzig Productios to her former or a i
i t i i f ll r i ri t i t i

t i - rit i i t t h a t it t h e
T h e G e n e ra l
h is
INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS OF ti r t j t
l
3
, . ti
S F i l tt t
6
l l i ' li
. f t i l llia tri l t t t ti , ri ,
i r l l t ti
f rr t t i , l . t, l t.
i ri i t i t i r t i i i l ti - t tt
ti )(l) , ( )( ), ( )( ) f t ti l r t j r t ri , i si i t ll t
l , ., i nr l t li , i t i t
referred t as t t. adverse t i ,
t , i l p -*r iTherafte, onSepembe 13,1978 th Regon lDi- tates istrict c rt t f r iri i-
i l l a s t i to e r a subpen atter.' e
i - caBurstein to r tif 7
lai t ll i t t t i i ri i t i t t r i
,. „ ., , . . , ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ .,Respondent s motion to correct the transcript is granted
t t ity t be Case 2-CB-7742 ( arner Bros., Inc.).
i i i i '
A t ha t time seem ed

I
i
s
. i i se.appear
5
r tem
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union filed an opposition to the General Counsel's over 800 members, and has jurisdicton over the east
appeal of my rulings. That appeal was denied, again tele- coast from Maine to Georgia. Local 644 is based in New
graphically, over the signature of Associate Executive York City and much of the work its members do is per-
Secretary Enid Weber, under date of November 9, 1979. formed there, although the record indicates that camera
On March 21, 1980, the General Counsel filed an "Ap- crews who are members of Local 644 may be dispatched
plication for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena ad to other parts of the United States, or abroad, with some
Testificandum" in the United States District Court for frequency.
the Southern District of New York (Case M-18-304). As Local 644 has collective-bargaining agreements with a
a result of this application, the court (Canella, J.) issued a number of companies engaged in the production of films
consent order on March 31, 1980, ordering that Jessica produced to be shown either in theaters or on television
M. Burstein appear before me in this hearing.8.. r t i f r i t i i ." The contract in effect during the times material here
After this, the hearing resumed on May 27, 1980,9 con- contan a e c urt r n reurn
tinued on May 28, and concluded on May 29. At the contans a -security provision requiring:
hearing all parties had the opportunity to present testi- 2(c) All cameramen in the employ of the Produc-
mony and documentary evidence, to examine and cross- er on the date hereof, and all cameramen hereafter
examine witnesses, and to argue orally. Following the hred ha a a o cnne em men
hearing the Union and the General Counsel filed briefs, h re d s h a lor a s amndit of contiued employment,
which have been carefully considered.be or become members of Local 644 not later thanwhich have been carefully considered. the 31st day following the beginning of their first
Based upon the entire record in this case including my t h e 3 1s ent as hereing the beginnng of their first
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make emloyment as heresnafter defaned, or the effective
the following: date of this sub-paragraph, whichever is later, and
all such cameramen, upon being or becoming mem-
FINDINGS OF FACT bers of Local 644 as aforesaid, shall be required, as
a condition of continued employment, to maintain
I. JURISDICTION such membership in good standing during the life
hereof.The jurisdiction of the Board over the Employer
herein is not in question. I find that the Employer, King- (d) "First employment" as referred to in sub-
Hitzig Productions, is an employer engaged in commerce paragraph (c) hereof shall (unless and until deter-
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. mined by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, the Board, or a court of
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED competent jurisdiction) mean the first such employ-
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find ment for producers under contract with Local 644
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning on or after the execution of this agreement, within
of Section 2(5) of the Act. any of the classifications covered hereby. '
Article 7 of the contract is a general provision cover-
ing, among other matters, crew size and composition on
A. Background feature films. " Article 7(j) provides:
The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em- "On all features (theatrical or television) and on
ployees (IATSE) is a union established along craft lines, production of Television Series, the photographic
with jurisdiction over technical craft and support phases working crew shall consist of a First Cameraman,
of the motion picture, stage, and television industries. Operative Cameraman, First Assistant Cameraman
The record in this case shows that IATSE comprises 38 and Second Assistant Cameraman."
crafts, trades, and occupations organized into separate
locals. Section (n) states:
Those employees who are members of IATSE and On all feature productions (theatrical or television)
who actually engaged in photography, whether on tape a Still Cameraman shall be a mandatory part of the
or film, and auxiliary equipment necessary for the oper- crew when all or a major (at least two-thirds) por-
ations of cameras are gathered into three locals in the tion of the production is being photographed within
United States. Local 659, located in Hollywood, is the the jurisdiction of Local 644. If less than all or a
largest of the three, representing about 3,000 employees, major portion of the feature is being photographed
and has jurisdiction over the western States. Local 666 is in Local 644's jurisdiction, the Still Cameraman
headquartered in Chicago. It is the smallest of the three, shall be a part of the crew so long as the shooting
and has jurisdiction over 22 States in the central part of continues with any featured member of the cast. In
the country. Local 644, Respondent here, has something all other cases where still photography of any kind
Judge Canella's order required Miss Burstein to appear at this hearing
which was then scheduled for April 7, 1980. Due to a transit strike in Substantially the same provisions govern employment under a sep-
New York. the matter was postponed by agreement of all parties until rae 4 d producers otelevision commer-
May 27, 1980, at which time Miss Burstein did appear and testified.
' David Kapelman. who had been serving as counsel for the General " King-Hitzig Productions is a joint venture organized to produce a
Counsel, resigned from the Regional Office in April 1980. He was suc- feature film for television under an arrangement with the American
ceeded at these last 3 days of the hearing by Carole Sobin. Broadcasting Company (ABC)
i t
, , it
.
.

t r r r , , i t t i i .
. 8 * . . „...M. Bustei appar bfore e inthishearng."The contract in effect during the ti es aterial here
ft r t is, t ri r s , 1980,' - c o n tis tunion- ec t p ro n re q n g:
c o n ta ln s a ""'""-sec t i i i i :
ri ll ti t rt it t t t ti in
t r i , t i r - a ll cameramen hereafter
i itne , t r ll . ll i t e i°e s h ala c ndifion of camed erent,
ri t i t r l l il i f , b r ob m condition of tinu d l t,
ich v ben r f ll i r d
b e f l
i r i t i case i cl i y
t h e 3 1st day following the beginning of their first
t eir de eanor, I ake employment
a s h e r e in a ft e r d e f in e d ,
o r t h e effective
te te i r is l t r, and
b e r s

,
ll

o r a t e t h e
" 0
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
A r t i c l e 7 o f t h e c o n t r a c t i s a r l r visi c v r-
iti n
. j)
n a
ll n

.

)

i i
, l t i ll , is t t j ri i ti f l . If less t a all r a
ti t is i t
t t t t . l is in cal 644's j ris icti , the Still a era an
i . It i
i
ll i
1Judge anella's order r ir iss rst i t appear at t is ri S the s
i t sc l f r ril , 1980. t a tr it tri i rteSubstantially t s r visi s r l y t r a sepr-
l ti
r a l e
W'-""-"' be<*e'" Local M
4
»" ftele
. is ti
rho r l l i i t
l i l , i
r
on-se
t o r P
ll tri l l i i
t l y, til ll t r
il i ary ll
i i ti i
i l i i l ll
nti l , j f t i
j i i i l l i i , til
rt i ll t f t ll t l ti
i i t l n
tr l t t i ll till
i i
i j i
i
LOCAL 644, IATSE 1419
is used in connection with a production, a Still Aside from these external causes for the serious unem-
Cameraman shall be a part of the crew. ployment among Respondent's members, the membership
and the leadership recognized another, internal, cause;
Section (i) of the same article states: namely, the number of members on Local 644's roster.
"Operation of still cameras shall be performed only The perception of the membership in the spring of 1978
by Still Cameramen represented by Local 644." was that there were too many members, and that to
process more applications and admit more new members
By way of explanation, the record in this case shows would work to the disadvantage of the existing member-
that feature films consume anywhere from 3 weeks to ship by further reducing opportunities for work. This
several months in actual filming time. Still pictures (as view was opposed by President Racies and Business
opposed to the moving pictures which are being taken as Representative Deen, at least as reported in the Union's
part of the production) are used to record the actors' bulletin, but on March 27, 1978, the Union's executive
makeup, as well as the arrangement of the set, at the end board voted to table all applications for membership until
of each day, so that uniformity of appearance and ar- a membership policy committee appointed to recommend
rangement can be maintained. Still photographs are also a new policy acceptable to the executive board and the
used for advertising and publicity purposes. membership did so. The committee report was due by
The collective-bargaining agreement also sets out May 15, 1978, but apparently no mutually acceptable
wage scales and classifications for the period covered by plan was forthcoming until October 1978 when the bulle-
the facts in this case as follows: tin for that month announced that at a meeting in Sep-
Director of tember a new membership policy was adopted. This
photography (first policy required prospective applicants to be issued an
cameraman) $249 per day "information sheet" rather than an application. This
Operative and sheet would then be screened by union officials to ascer-
additional tain if the member was qualified to receive an applica-
cameraman $195 per day tion. In addition, the new policy tied the reception of
Assistant cameramen $115 per day new members to the percentage of current members un-
Second assistant employed during a given period.
cameraman $91 per day This new policy was adopted despite the vehement ob-
Still cameraman $146 per day jections of President Racies as expressed in the June
It should be noted further that the contract specifically 1978, summer 1978, and October 1978 bulletins and re-
permits individual employees to negotiate better terms maied in effect until at least the first halfof 1979.
and conditions than those set out therein. It is manifest Meanwhile, Jessica M. Burstein, on whose behalf the
from all the testimony on the subject herein that Local charge in this case was filed, had been employed in the
644 perceives itself as an elite organization, made up of late 1970s by the National Broadcasting Company
members possessing unique and precious artistic talent. (NBC) as a still photographer. While she was employed
Thus, Respondent's business representative, Darwin at NBC, Burstein participated in a union organizing cam-
Deen, testified that directors of photography, entitled paign. In this campaign both Local 644 and Local 15
under the terms of the contract to $1,245 per week, aver- NABET were competing for the loyalties of the employ-
age $6,000 for the same period in Local 644's jurisdiction ees. Burstein was approached by representatives of Local
(and $15,000 a week in the Hollywood Local 659). Most 644'3 both as a member of the employees' group, and in-
other classifications, according to Deen, similarly negoti- dividually, in efforts to persuade her to support Local
ate arrangements at varying amounts above the scales set 644- But she declined and instead threw her support to
out in the contract. NABET, which became the representative for the em-
This fortunate state of things is more than offset by ployees involved, including Burstein.14
chronic and severe unemployment in the industry. Ac- In March 1978 Jessica Burstein had started working
cording to the testimony of Darwin Deen, and in com- for herself as a photographer. In pursuance of her career
munications from Deen and Union President Larry objectives she went to the offices of Local 644 to apply
Racies to the membership printed in the Union's bulletin, for membership. There she spoke with Business Repre-
the problem, caused in part by the employment of aliens sentative Darwin Deen. According to Burstein's testimo-
on films made in the United States, the use of nonunion ny, which I credit and which was corroborated by Deen,
crews, and the incursions of a rival union, Local 15 of he told her that her membership application would not
the National Association of Broadcast Employees and be processed at that time. She mentioned her experience
Technicians, AFL-CIO (NABET), affected the majority at NBC and Deen replied that the fact that she had
of Respondent's members. t2 The attitude of Local 644 worked for NBC in a unit sought by Local 644, and that
and its officers toward Local 15 NABET as expressed in
Local 644's bulletins, and in Deen's comments at the Since those representatives were not identified in the complaint, nor
alleged to be agents of Local 644. I have not considered statements at-
hearing, was one of unremitting hostility. tributed to them by Burstein, but I do credit her testimony. which was
credible and undenied, that she wias approached by those representatives.
1
' In a letter to Senator Daniel P. Moynihan of New York. reprinted in " Further details of the relations between this group of employees of
the June 1978 edition of the bulletin. Deen estimated that unemployment NBC are not important to the issues in this case. Apparently there was an
at 75 percent but revised that figure downward in his testimony. There is unsuccessful strike and, possibly as a result. Burstein left NBC in the
no dispute that the unemployment rate was inordinately high. early spring of 1978.
.

t a in

til i
l cifi ll
197 8, su m m er , t r 1978 ll ti s and re-
l t t
m ai ed i eff ec t u nt il a t
leas t t h e n rst ha l f o f 197 9.
i i i il i . r t i , lf t
ll ti j i l i fil , l i t
i lf l i ti , ' t i l ti
si i ti
a s a st ill il l
' ntativ , i i i
ti , ti
I n th i s i t l l
ti f t l lti f t l -
l ' t i r r t ti f l
l 6 44 11 t r f t l ' r , i -
ifi ti , r i i i l ti ll , i t t l
l 644 . B u t l i t t rt t
t. nt ti
t l i l , i l i r t i .
14
i l tr .
M a c h i i
ti
i i l l
i ' l i
t ti ti
l i " ,
w h c h i i rr r t ,
l l he i l ti
l i ti t
i , j ri l
2 l i l
i l
l 'S "
S in c e ho s e
l
,
ri , O Of r itti tilit . tri t t t e rst i , t I r it r t ti . i s
ai i .
'
3
. f
n

igh.early i
till
s h e
lf
t
t h s
l a t e 19 70's
i
ee s
n,
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the unit had rejected Local 644, might hurt her chances working. Deen told her that "by law we can't prevent
for getting into Local 644. He said "people" in the you from working" and told her the matter of whether
Union were angry about the NBC situation. Burstein was she could come on the set as a nonunion person with a
not admitted into membership at that time. standby would have to be decided by the Union's execu-
It is in this context that the facts in this case devel- tive board.'6
oped. It is thus evident that Burstein knew what she wanted
to do-to be the still photographer on the set of "How
B. The Alleged Discrimination Against Jessica To Pick Up Girls." Hitzig's motivations are not so clear.
Burstein On the one hand he assured Burstein that she was to be
During her employment with NBC Jessica Burstein the still photographer on the film. On the other hand he
had met, and apparently impressed, Rupert Hitzig, presi- stated in his letter to Deen that he understood that he
dent of Rupert Productions and a film producer of some would be required to hire a Local 644 member as still
15 years' experience. Sometime in the spring of 1978 photographer for the file. At the same time Hitzig knew
Hitzig formed a joint venture with Alan King Produc- that he was budgeted for only one still photographer.
tions, Inc., which took the name of King-Hitzig Produc- Burstein reported for work on July 10 at the beginning
tions (King-Hitzig). One purpose of the joint venture was of the production and she worked, alone, as the still pho-
to produce a film to be shown on ABC television and to tographer on the set.
be entitled "How To Pick Up Girls." Despite the title, On that same evening the Union's executive board met
this was to be a serious effort by a number of presumably and considered King- Hitzig's request regarding Bur-
talented individuals and budgeted at $1,100,000. Actual stein's employment. Dean testified that he had gained the
production was to start on July 10. impression that Hitzig's request and Burstein's call indi-
Toward the end of June, Hitzig and Jessica Burstein cated that what they wanted was for Burstein to be a
discussed her employment on the film as a still photogra- "special" photographer on the film. Special photogra-
pher. Beyond the usual requirements for the still photog- phers were described in the record as people possessing
rapher on this production, the script called for a princi- special, even unique, talents and who may be used to
pal character, who was hinself a photographer, to use perform specific functions on a set. However, Dean's tes-
photographs taken on the set as a part of the plot. Thus, timony was contradicted by an excerpt from the minutes
a portion of the still photographer's work product would of the Union's executive board for July 10. The minutes
become an integral part of the film. As the result of these submitted in evidence show that the board considered a
discussions between Hitzig, Burstein, and King-Hitzig's request from King-Hitzig to "use applicant" Jessica Bur-
production manager, Bruce Pustin, Burstein was hired on stein as Still Cameraman and has requested permission
June 30 as the still photographer for "How To Pick Up for her to work .... " The minutes went on to record
Girls" at the Union's scale which was then $146 per day. that the board voted to "get a full five man crew and
There was some conversation between Pustin, Hitzig, allow Ms. Burstein to do actor's point of view pictures
and Burstein concerning the fact that she was not a only." I accept the executive board minutes as accurately
member of Local 644. It is clear from Hitzig's testimony reflecting what occurred at the meeting, and I reject
that Burstein was hired as the still photographer on the Deen's testimony that Burstein was actually seeking to
set; that he was aware that she was not a member of be a special photographer on the film.
Local 644; and that Local 644 required that a still pho- The next morning another still photographer, Curtis
tographer be on the set of a feature film. " Hitzig's moti- Kaufman, reported to the set. According to Hitzig,
vations in all of this are not so clear. For example, he they had to hire Kaufman because they were required to
testified that the film, "How To Pick Up Girls," was have a still photographer on the set when shooting a
budgeted for only one still photographer. Then, on July union film. He added that Burstein was not a member of
6, he wrote to Darwin Deen requesting permission to use the Union so they had to hire Kaufman. If Burstein had
Burstein as "a still photographer" on the set, and setting been a union member it would not, according to Hitzig
out the "unique situation" present in this film and Bur- have been necessary to hire another still photographer
stein's ability to fill these production needs. He closedwith the statement that he understood the matter would Bruce Pustin informed Burstein on July 11 that since shewith the statement that he understood the matter would w n a m o Lwas not a member of Local 644 the Company had to puthave to be discussed with the Union's executive board, a union person on the set Pustin told in ha to put
and that King-Hitzig would have "a Local 644 still pho- man had to be paid, but she was not, since they could
tographer on the set as well." Burstein testified that afford one still photographer
Hitzig told her he would back her right to be on the set, Burstein continued to work on the film even though
and would be supportive of her as long as the Union didstein on d t the film n ou
not pull its crew off the set. She further stated that she was not paid until the filming was concluded, a
Pustin told her to go and check with Deen to find out perod of 4 weeks The evidence shows that she did re-
whether she could actually work on the film.
After this last conversation Burstein did call Deen and I' This was substantially corroborated by Deen.After this last conversation Burstein did call Deen and 17 An excerpt from the executive board minutes of April 10, 1978,
asked him if she would be prevented by the Union from shows that Burstein's application had been tabled
'" Respondent maintains that there is no evidence that Kaufman is a
"' The actual agreement between King-Hitzig and Local 644 was not member of Local 644. However, he was identified as such by Hitzig, and
executed by Hitzig until July 5, 1978, and by the Union on July 26, 1978 an exhibit prepared by Local 644 and received in evidence herein shows
However, Hitzig is a producer with 15 years' experience I infer and find that Curtis H. Kaufman was initiated as a member of Local 644 as a still
for that reason that he was aware of local 644's contractual requirements. photographer on July I, 1976.
6
i r.
t i t i
.
.
1

. .
ll

'
l ; t t l i t t till til
t t t f t il " i i ' " 8 .
ti i ll t i r t l . l , t i f i
t tifi t t t fil , i i l , ti
t l till , l i
, r t t i ti i i t t t t f . If t i
r t i s "a till t r r" t t, tti i i l r i t i i ,
t t i it ti r t i t i fil t
st i 's ilit t fill t ti . l ru Pt i B on Ju1111 t s h
...h itie statin th, 1.1drtodtemttrwu ruce Pustin infor ed urstein on July 11 that since sheit t t t t t athe underst odt l as ot ember f ocal 644 the Company had to put
t is ss it t i ' ti r , a i r t s t. ti t l Burstei that Kauf-
t t i it i l " l till a n o s e s n t , s e t hey ul
t t ll. t i t tifi t t aff r d o etl t h er.
it i t l r l r ri t t t s t, afford one still photographer.
l rti f r l t i i Burstein c tinue to work on t fil eve th gh
t ll it r ff t t. f rt r t t t t ps he t i til t fil i l ,
ti "'^ o f 4 w e ek s. T he
t r l t ll r t fil .-------
ft r t i l t r ti t i i ll ;; l l i s si substant"-y corroborated by Deen. ., ,,,
After this last conversation Burstein did call Deen and An excerpt from the executive board minutes of April 10. 1978,
t t r t i ' li ti t l .
- t s s
>
l il l l ti
l l til l . l . . i i l i i
l s ' . i l til
t at l ' l , l 1.
k
r.
LOCAL 644, IATSE 1421
ceive a check for 1 week's pay, but that she returned testimony. For example, it appears from Rupert Hitzig's
that money to King-Hitzig. Kaufman was paid for 5 full letter of July 6, 1978, to Darwin Deen that the letter was
weeks. There was no evidence on what either Burstein written as a result of that conversation. It further appears
or Kaufman actually did during the filming.19 that Deen required that the letter be written as a formal
Reviewing these facts in consideration of the several request from the Employer to be permitted to use Jessica
allegations of the complaint, I first will consider the Burstein as the still photographer on the film "How To
question of Respondent's refusal to grant membership to Pick Up Girls." Thus, I infer and find that Respondent,
Jessica Burstein in March 1978. While this is not alleged acting through Deen, required King-Hitzig formally to
in the complaint as discriminatory, the General Counsel request permission for Burstein to work on the film.
does claim in her brief that this action by Respondent The last paragraph of the July 6 letter likewise fur-
was discriminatory and did violate Section 8(b)(l)(A) and nishes an insight into the substance of the conversation
8(b)(2) of the Act. The matter was fully litigated at the of July 5 between Deen and Pustin. In that paragraph
hearing and I feel in the circumstances there is no preju- Hitzig wrote, "It is our understanding that this matter
dice to any party in my deciding the issue. will be discussed by the Executive Board and, if ap-
The facts on this point are clear and undisputed. Jessi- proved, we will also have a Local 644 still photographer
ca Burstein went to Respondent's offices and spoke to on the set as well [sic]." This agreement to employ a
Business Representative Deen. Deen informed her that Local 644 still photographer runs contrary to the testi-
her chances for getting into the Union were not good, mony of both Burstein and Hitzig to the effect that Bur-
and he mentioned that her past affiliation with Local 15, stein was to be the only still photographer on the set.
NABET, and her concurrent rejection of overtures by The film was budgeted for only one still photographer.
Local 644 would be held against her. Deen's own hostil- There was no indication from the reported conversations
ity to NABET was manifest in his demeanor while testi- between Hitzig and Burstein that a standby photographer
fying, and the feelings Respondent President Racies as was to be hired. But both knew that Burstein was not a
expressed in the columns of its newsletter I find accu- member of Local 644, and Hitzig had assured Burstein
rately reflect the views of Respondent toward NABET. that he would back her until the Union started to pull
Respondent maintains that Burstein's failure to gain the crew off the set. Therefore, even in the absence of
membership resulted from its policy, uniformly applied direct testimony, I infer and find from the hostility
from March 27, 1978, on, to table and refuse to act on all shown to Burstein by Deen because of her former associ-
applications for membership. However, the list submitted ation with NABET; the fact that Hitzig had hired Bur-
in evidence listing new members of Respondent shows stein with the warning that he would not back her, i.e.,
that from March 28, 1978, the day after the executive continue her employment, if he were threatened with a
board voted to table all membership applications to July walkout by Respondent; and the statement in the July 6
10, 1978, when Burstein began working for King-Hitzig, letter, contrary to Hitzig's prior statements, that a Local
23 people were accepted into membership. From July 10 644 still photographer would be hired; that this shift re-
until the end of 1978 10 more members were accepted. suited from pressure applied by Deen in his conversation
Because of this contradiction between what Respond- with Pustin on July 5. The natural and probable result of
ent says and what the evidence shows, and the undenied such a conversation was exactly what happened; Bur-
existence of a discriminatory motivation, I find the action stein was advised that she would not be paid for her
of Respondent in denying union membership to Burstein work.
at the executive board meeting of April 10, 1978, to be a In accord with these findings and inferences, I find
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. There is, how- that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
ever, no evidence in this record that Burstein sought em- 8(b)(2) by requiring that it approve the presence of Bur-
ployment anywhere else between April and her talks stein on the set. International Association of Heat and
with Hitzig in late June. Thus, I cannot find a violation Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local No. 7 AFL
of Section 8(b)(2) in this matter in that time period. (Seattle Construction Council), 92 NLRB 753 (1950). Re-
Based upon the facts outlined above, there is no ques- spondent's arguments that it is responsible for keeping
tion but that Jessica Burstein was hired by King-Hitzig the set or filming area free from "papparazzi" 2 0 or other
to be the still photographer on the film "How To Pick unwanted intruders rings hollow. There is no indication
Up Girls" in late June 1978. The film was budgeted for in the collective-bargaining agreement, or elsewhere in
one still photographer and the check and the payroll slip the record, that the Union has any right or obligation to
entered in evidence show that Burstein was on the pay- ensure the tranquility of an employer's set or filming lo-
roll, and was paid, for 1 week. On July 5 there was a cation.
conversation between Darwin Deen and King-Hitzig's I find further that Respondent has violated Section
production manager, Bruce Pustin. There is no direct 8(b)(l)(A) and 8(b)(2) in that it caused King-Hitzig to
evidence on this conversation. Deen did not mention it remove Burstein from its payroll, since Respondent had,
during his extensive testimony, and Pustin was not avail- as I have found, discriminatorily refused to admit her to
able as a witness during the hearing in May 1980. The membership. Western Gillette, Inc., 201 NLRB 662
substance of the conversation can, nevertheless, be re- (1973)
constructed from documents in evidence and from other
20 Papparazzi are freelance photographers whose business consist of
" Hitzig testified that the photographs which he had hoped would be taking photographs of celebrities which they may later sell to newspapers
an "integral part of the ilm" in the end were not used at all. or magazines.
1
'
. 19

, will

.
.
,
l l
t i t t. i ti f t
i . , I t i i l ti t l t t , l . ,
, ). -
t t fil i fr r i 20 r t r
i t
li t , t t t i ri t r li ti to
t t t ilit l ' t r fil i l -
l 5 t r s a cation.

i t i ,
l it i t i i . i . t tt , .,
, rt l , e re- (1973).
-- f
~hic
i t Fil
ss b
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Respondent's Union-Security Clause effect, has completed 31 days of employment with any
The General Counsel maintains that the union-security employer subject to its provisions, the provision consti-
provisions, quoted above, in the collective-bargaining tutes a closed shop and a bar to employment unless that
agreement between King-Hitzig and Respondent are un- employee continues to remain a member of the Union in
lawful and discriminatory within the meaning of Section good standing. American Guild of Variety Artists (Fon-
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. tainebleau Hotel), 163 NLRB 457 (1967).2'
In evaluating this allegation, I am not unmindful of the D. R I
problems which the Union faces due to the transient
nature of the film production business; the woeful level The constitution and bylaws of Local 644, as revised
of unemployment among its members; the fact that many on March 1, 1971, set the initiation fee for admission to
of those members may make individual arrangements membership in any classification 22 at four times the high-
with employers both in terms of compensation and peri- est regular weekly scale for that classification. 23
ods of employment; and intense competition for jobs The General Counsel alleges in the complaint that the
with NABET, with foreigners, and with nonunion pro- fee is excessive and discriminatory within the proscrip-
ducers. The evidence here shows that employees may tion of Section 8(b)(5) of the Act. Section 8(b)(5) reads,
work for a number of different employers over the in pertinent part, as follows:
course of a year. Some of these employers maybe, as
King-Hitzig apparently was, established for the purpose [It shall be an unfair labor practice] "to require of
of making only one or two films. The evidence further employees covered by an agreement authorized
shows that the shooting of a feature film usually lasts for under subsection (a)(3) the payment, as a condition
only 3 to 5 weeks. It is thus understandable that the precedent to becoming a member of such organiza-
Union would take steps to assume continuity in member- tion, of a fee in an amount which the Board finds
ship and to preserve its integrity as a factor promoting excessive or discriminatory under all the circum-
and preserving the interests of its members in the indus- stances
try.
The Union is not entitled to take measures which tend In construing this subsection, the Board has defined
to interfere with the rights bestowed by the Act on em- the applicability of the subsection "to situations only
ployees and those who seek to be employees alike. Here, where a valid union shop contract covering the employ-
the definition of "first employment" contained in section ees is in effect." Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co.,
2(c) and (d) of the collective-bargaining agreement, re- 93 NLRB 1459 (1951)
quiring the accumulation of 31 days, even if that time is S -
spent in working for different employers, and thereafter sions of the contract here are invalid, this condition is
requiring union membership, clearly contravenes the stat- n . , c f
not met. Accordingly, I can find no violation of Sectionutory intent of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act governing such nd need not c e te o a8(b)(5) and I need not consider the other arguments putagreements.agree ents. forward by Respondent and the General Counsel on this
There is no indication here, as in International Photog- forward Respondent and the General Counsel on this
raphers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local 659 of the ssue
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Having found that Respondent violated Section
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
Canada (MPO-TV of California Inc., Y-A Productions, cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
Inc.), 197 NLRB 1187 (1972), of the existence of a mul- action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
tiemployer bargaining unit which might, even in the ab- Having found that Respondent discriminated against Jes-
sence of continuous employment, provide some theoreti- sica Burstein on April 10, 1978, when its executive board
cal basis for legality to Respondent's union-security voted to table her membership application, not admitting
provisons. Here, even if there is a multiemployer unit, it her to membership until March 21, 1979, I shall recom-
is evident that King-Hitzig signed the contract as an indi- mend that her admission be backdated to April 10, 1978,
vidual employer. In this case, if an employee came to the date of the discrimination against her.
work for King-Hitzig with, say, 10 days of experience Since I have found that Respondent's actions discrimi-
with another producer covered by the contract, he or nated against Jessica Burstein by denying her the wages
she would be required to join Respondent no later than due her in her employment with King-Hitzig Produc-
the 21st day of employment with King-Hitzig. Thereaf- tions, I shall recommend that Respondent make Burstein
ter, this hypothetical employee could not go to work for whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her by reason
any producer unless he or she continued as a member in
good standing, through the duration of the contract or as 2 Sec. 7(i) of the contract, quoted above, would also lead to the con-
long as this clause was perpetuated from contract to con- clusion that Respondent maintained a closed shop. at least for still pho-
tract. tographers, but this portion of the contract was not litigated and it may
be that its intent is quite different from its tenor. I make no findings on
In the light of these conclusions I find that, by enter- this sec. 7(i),
ing into and maintaining these union-shop provisions, Re- 1: The Union admits members in the several classifications noted in the
spondent has violated and is violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) wage scales quoted above.
Of the Act. Convair, A Division of General Dynamics Cor- " There are exceptions to this applicable to children of members, who
pay only 25 percent of the fee, and in cases where new classifications are
poration, 111 NLRB 1055 (1955). Indeed, with respect to being organized, upon a vote of two-thirds of the members at a regular
any employee who, during the tine such provisions are in or special meeting.
t's i - ity use l
r l l i t i t t t i - curit l j t t it i i , t i i ti-
, i i
t u tes a c lo s ed and a ba r t o l y t unless that
t l ti t r i r f t i i
l i r i ti t i . ican il f riety rtist ( n-
( )(l)( ) f t i e leau , ). 1
D n nitiation.Fe
. Respondent s Initiation Fee

"

, i it i
, t li t r [It s ll e an unfair labor practice] "to require of
t, iti
.
t ti it i r- ti , f a fee in an a ount hich the Board finds
its rs in the indus- stances....

. ,

a ree e t, re- 93 LRB 1459 (1951).
i i t l ti , i t t i I hav a d f t th u s p
t i r i f r iff r t l , t t i t t ,
re iri i rs i , l rl tr t t t- me .A, I a f no va o Seto
t r i te t f ecti (a)( ) f t e t r i s c 8cor(5l I I ee d no otonf Sentsou' v /v / e e. ~~~~~~~8(b)(5)
reements.fowrbyRsodnanthGeeaConlonhi
f o r w a r d ^
t i ,
f o u n d t h a t t i l t ti
f nd ) t
f ,
), t t.

s i c a
f t

f

St Co t O
1

n
,
"
l
f t i , isi l ics - r ,

tion, ). Wi t i i , t f t -t ir f t r t r l r

LOCAL 644, IATSE 1423
of the discrimination against her. 24 Loss of earnings, if any member was coerced or had not acted voluntarily in
any, shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W affiliating themselves with the Union. Thus, I will not
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest recommend that Respondent be ordered to reimburse
thereon to be computed in the manner set forth in Flor- dues. Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, gener- Joiners of America, AFL-CIO [Mechanical Handling Sys-
ally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). rems] v. N.L.R.B., 365 U.S. 651 (1961).
Having further found that Respondent has maintained
invalid and unlawful union-security clauses in violation CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2), I shall recommend that it
cease and desist enforcing such clauses, and that it imme- . Respondent Local 644 is a labor organization within
diately revise those union-security clauses to conform to the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
the strictures of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Further, I 2 King-Hitzig Productions is an employer engaged in
will recommend that Respondent notify all producers commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
with whom these contractual provisions are in effect25 of the Act.
the terms of this order together with revised language 3. By denying Jessica Burstein union membership be-
conforming the union-security provisions of the contract cause of her activities on behalf of another labor organi-
to the law. zation, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)l)(A) of the
The General Counsel has requested that I order the re- Act.
imbursement of union dues paid under the unlawful 4. By requiring Jessica Burstein's employer to obtain
union-security provisions. In this case, however, the evi- permission of the Union to enter upon the employer's
dence shows that many members had held their member- premises or filming location, Respondent has violated
ship for years26 and there was no evidence to show that Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
5. By causing Jessica Burstein's employer to cease
2" leave for the compliance stage of the proceedings the effect. if any, paying her wages, Respondent has violated Section
on this recommended order of the letter from Herbert Burstein, Esquire. 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act
to me, dated March 19. 1979, copies of which are in evidence in this case. ) ad () o Ac
25 This will include all producers of feature films and commercials. 6. By maintaining union-security provisions which do
since it was stipulated that the latter contracts contain union-security pro- not allow the statutory 30-day waiting period, Respond-
visions substantially identical to those in the feature producers' contracts ent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
x Note the length of service of many members mentioned in the
Union's newsletters in evidence. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
. ,
t
.
). t . . . ( 1).
_ R L 6 i a
L
t h e ti ( ) t t.
. ti i l r in
t" e
.
)(l)
.
l )
.
"1 i t t i t ff t. if , i r s, s t as i late ection
t is r t l tt fr t , i . )( ) ) .

" ,. . o
t St t to y i
visions substantially identical to those in the feature producers' contracts. ent has violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act.
~ r