Local 928, International Longshoremen

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 1044 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 928, International Longshoremen 's Association,
AFL-CIO (Marine Materials Handling Corpora-
tion) and Darwin R. Marble , an Individual. Case
3-CB-1396
December 4, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On June 12, 1970, Trial Examiner Stanley N.
Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam-
iner also declined to make findings concerning certain
other unfair labor practices as he concluded that they
were not included within the allegations of the
complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Local 928, International Long-
shoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
under the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq. ("Act"), brought on by complaint
issued through the National Labor Relations Board's Third
I Hereafter all dates are 1970 unless otherwise specified
2 Trial transcript corrected in respect to certain obvious and
Regional Director (Buffalo, N.Y.) on April 10 based upon a
charge filed on February 6, 1970, by Darwin R. Marble,
was heard by me in Buffalo, New York, on May 21, 1970 1
All parties participated throughout and were afforded full
opportunity to present evidence and contentions, proposed
findings and conclusions, and briefs. Subsequent to the
hearing, a one-page letter dated May 23, 1970, was received
from Respondent, and it has been added to the record as
Respondent's Exhibit 1 (the record being hereby reopened
for that purpose only). That letter, together with all of the
evidence and all of the contentions presented at the
hearing, has been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record2 and my observation of the
testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
iI. PARTIES; JURISDICTION
At all material times, Marine Materials Handling
Corporation ("Marine," "Employer," "Company") has
been and is a New York corporation with principal office at
Pfohl Road, Cheektowaga, New York, and principal place
of business at Seaway Pier, Fuhrman Boulevard, Buffalo,
New York, engaged at Seaway Pier in loading and
unloading marine vessels. Within the 12-month representa-
tive period immediately preceding issuance of the com-
plaint, in the course and conduct of its said business,
Marine performed services, valued at over $50,000, for
various business enterprises, each of which annually in the
course and conduct of its business purchased, transferred,
and delivered to its place of business in New York directly
in interstate commerce from states other than New York
goods and materials valued at over $50,000. Darwin R.
Marble, the Charging Party, is an individual who has been
in the employ of Marine at times material herein.
I find that at all material times Marine has been and is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act; that Respondent Union
has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction in
this proceeding is proper.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The issues presented are whether Respondent Union
violated: ( 1) Section 8(b)(I)(A), by restraining and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under
Section 7, of the Act; (2) Section 8(b)(2), by causing Marine
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3), of the Act, through bringing about the discharge
and failure of reinstatement of Marble by Marine.
B. Facts as Found
The material facts are substantially undisputed.
typographical errors
186 NLRB No. 31
LOCAL 928, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN
1. Background
Respondent Longshoremen's Local 928 has a collective
agreement with Marine wherein it is recognized by Marine
as exclusive representative of Marine's Buffalo port
(including Seaway Pier) employees, and under which Local
928 refers and supplies labor to Marine.3 Labor covered by
the agreement consists of foremen, signalmen, longshore-
men, and crane operators. Section 1 of article VI, entitled
"Employment Priorities," of the parties' "basic" agreement
states:
First preference of employment shall be given to
persons appearing on a list of 125 persons whom the
Company and the Union agree are the persons having
the greatest seniority at Buffalo Port Terminal. Persons
on such list shall be considered the steady or regular
employees entitled to be first employed before the
Company offers employment to any other persons.
It is stipulated that the "list of 125 persons" referred to in
section I constitutes the entire membership list of Local 928.
Under Section 3 of article I, upon exhaustion of the list:
the Company shall have the right in its sole discretion to
hire such further employees as may be required without
regard to seniority and without any interference by the
Union;
and under section 4, "permanent" vacancies on the list of
125 are to be filled "by the Company in its sole discretion"
from among qualified persons. Article VII of the agreement
contains a union-security provision requiring all employees
to join Local 928 within 30 days. Article V, headed "No
Discrimination," states in relevant part:
Sec. I. The Company agrees not to discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment
because of membership or non-membership in any
labor organization.
Sec 2. The Union agrees that it will not discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment
because of membership or non-membership in
any labor organization.
2 Facts Concerning Darwin R. Marble
On January 19 (Monday), William Pfohl, President of
Marine (the Employer), after he had "requested [the Union
to furnish] a full time [regular or permanent] man for the
job" of hi-lift or crane operator on the pier, and the Union
had failed to do so, hired Darwin R. Marble (who had
previously worked for the Employer as crane operator on
January 9-10 and as a garage mechanic's helper at Pfohl
Trucking Company for about 4 1/2 years) for the job.
Marble operated the crane all that week. At the end of the
3 This arrangement results from the parties ' agreement adopting and
incorporating by reference the terms of a "basic" contract (G C Exh 2)
between Local 928 and Pittston Stevedoring Corporation of Buffalo
Although the "adoption" agreement (G C Exh 3) is dated March 25, 1970,
it is stipulated to have been in effect on April 1, 1969
4 As indicated above , the Employer 's collective agreement with ILA
Local 928 contains a union-security provision requiring all employees "as a
condition of their employment" to join that Union within 30 days from the
1045
week, on Friday evening, January 23, Marble telephoned
ILA Local 928 Steward McGuire and "asked him
[McGuire] if I [Marble] could join the union because I have
a full time job with Mr. Pfohl."4 McGuire replied that
"There may be a possibility" and that he would let Marble
know.
At the beginning of the following week, on January 26
(Monday), ILA Local 928 Steward McGuire, accompanied
by another ILA Local 928 member, visited Pfohl and
indicated that he (McGuire) wished to put the ILA Local
928 member on the crane in place of Marble. Pfohl pointed
out to McGuire that he could not do so without "tak[ing]
Mr. Marble off." McGuire and his companion approached
Marble, who was operating the crane, and, as credibly and
uncontrovertedly5 testified by Marble:
"he [McGuire] said to me [Marble ] what the hell was I
doing in the hi-lift, that I didn't have any business in
there because I didn't belong to the union. So then he
told me to get out of the hi-lift."
Marble got out of the crane to expostulate with McGuire
that he was there first and that it was his job, and also
reminded McGuire that he had asked to join the Union.
Meanwhile, the Union member whom McGuire had
brought with him had entered the crane and began
operating it. Marble asked McGuire if there was somebody
higher up in the Union whom he could see. McGuire
referred him to Union President John J. Brill (Brill). Later
that day, Marble explained the situation to Brill, among
other things acquainting him with the fact that McGuire
had "told me [Marble] that I would have to have thirty days
in before I could join the union" (the union-security
provision requires employees to join within 30 days). Brill
referred Marble to Brill's brother, "Mike" Brill-the ILA
Local 928 Secretary-Treasurer-, who, when Marble
communicated with him, promised to be in touch with
Marble after a "special meeting" that night.
On January 28 (Wednesday), Pfohl again instructed
Marble to operate the crane pending the arrival of ILA
Local 928 member Panda, who (as Pajda himself testified)
later reported there, supplanting Marble, on order of ILA
Steward McGuire. Since Marble had not heard from
"Mike" Brill, despite the latter's assurance to be in touch
with him, on January 29 (Thursday) Marble telephoned
"Mike" Brill to inquire about the "decision on me [Marble]
joining the union. And he ["Mike" Brill] told me that
if somebody died or somebody left the union, that that
opening would be my chance to get in the union, that was
the answer he gave me."6
Marine (Employer) President Pfohl credibly and without
contradiction testified that he has known since around 1966
that ILA Local 928 membership is a prerequisite for
inclusion on the "list of 125" used as the Union's hiring
"seniority" list, Union President Brill having told him that.
commencement of their employment
It is noted that McGuire, who was called as Respondent Union's
witness, did not testify on this subject , and that the other ILA Local 928
member who accompanied McGuire was unexplamedly not produced to
testify
6 In effect so conceded by Union President John J Brill during his
testimony "Mike" Brill did not testify
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Rationale and Determination
Under Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, it is an
unfair labor practice for a labor organization to restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, or to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act (e.g., by causing his discharge) or to
discriminate against an employee "with respect to whom
membership in such organization has been denied . . . on
some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic
dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership."
Although it is not unlawful for an employer to enter into
a hiring hall arrangement with a union, nor to utilize a
seniority list for the bona-fide purpose of determining
employment preference entitlement without regard to
union membership (Plumbers' Union v. Borden, 373 U.S.
690, 695; Local 357, Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 365 U.S. 667;
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 337-339;
N.L.R.B. v. IAM(Menasco Mfg. Co.), 279 F.2d 761 (C.A. 9),
cert. denied 364 U.S. 890), it is unlawful to enter into such
an arrangement or to utilize such a list in order
discriminatorily to limit employment to union members.
Local 357, Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., supra, Plumbers Local
633, 173 NLRB No. 205, enfd. 424 F.2d 390, (C.A. 6, 1970);
Skouras Theaters Corporation, 155 NLRB 157, enfd. 361 F.2d
826 (C.A. 3); N.L.R.B. v. Local 269, IBEW, 357 F.2d 51
(C.A. 3), enfd. 149 NLRB 768; N L.R B. v. IAM (Menasco
Mfg. Co.), supra at 765-766; cf International Marine
Terminals, Inc., 137 NLRB 588. It is clear that Marble was
ousted from his employment with Marine because, and
only because, of the intervention of Respondent Union, as
shown, by reason of his nonmembership in the Union It is
accordingly found that Respondent Union in and since
January 26, 1970, has restrained and coerced employees,
including Darwin R. Marble, an employee of Marine
Materials Handling Corporation, in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; and, further, that at the
same time Respondent Union has caused said employer to
discriminate against said employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by procuring and causing the discharge of
said employee and the failure to reinstate or rehire him,
thereby violating Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
Respondent contends that Marble, the employee whose
discharge it brought about, was merely a "casual" or
"temporary" and not a "regular" or "permanent" employ-
ee. Whatever these words may mean generally and also in
the context of the particular situation presented, they are
not talismans which in and of themselves resolve the
problem by mechanical attachment, as a leech to a wound.
To begin with, even under the collective agreement
regulating the relationship between the parties, since the
Union had failed to satisfy the Employer's call for an
employee it was the Employer's prerogative to hire
somebody else, as that agreement states, "without regard to
seniority and without any interference by the Union" (G.C.
Exh. 2, art. III, sec. 1). As a part of such hiring, thus
properly carried out by the Employer and not by the
Union, it was appropriate for the Employer in the conduct
of its own business to fill its operational needs considering
their nature. Thus, under the circumstances shown, it was
for the Employer, and not for the Union, to hire in terms of
the nature of the job vacancy to be filled-i.e., "casual" or
"temporary," or "regular" or "permanent." This the
Employer did by hiring Marble as a "regular" or
"permanent" employee to fill a "permanent" and not a
"temporary" job. It was thereafter unlawful for the Union
to intrude on this lawfully established employment
relationship so as to attempt to nullify or modify its basic
nature by labelling it-in contradistinction to the Employer
who had lawfully hired Marble-"casual" or "temporary"
and through the simplistic expedient of such relabelling to
oust Marble from his job by reason of his nonmembership
in the Union.
Even more basically, however, Respondent's attempt
here to make out a distinction between "casual"
("temporary") and "regular" ("permanent") employee
must fail for a more fundamental reason. Since it is clear
that Marble was ousted from hisjob by the Union because
of his nonmembership in the Union , it is unimportant
whether hisjob was "casual" or "regular." Skouras Theaters
Corporation, supra. Although the Union contends that it
rightfully ousted Marble because he lacked sufficient
"seniority," under the Union's system-as described by its
two witnesses at the trial- "seniority" could not be
accrued by a nonmember of the Union; thus, "seniority" is
dependent upon union membership. Under Respondent's
system, therefore, "seniority" means "Union membership,"
and it follows that if-as Respondent claims-it ousted
Marble from his job because of Marble's lack of
LOCAL 928, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN
"seniority," it ousted him because of his lack of union
membership.? Accordingly, Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) were
thereby violated.
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state
the following:
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Marine Materials Handling Corporation is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 928, International Longshoremen's Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, Respondent herein, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Assertion ofjunsdiction in this proceeding is proper.
4. By causing Marine Materials Handling Corporation
to discriminate against Darwin R. Marble in the hire and
tenure of his employment, through procuring his discharge
from the employ of Marine on January 26, 1970, as well as
his nonreinstatement and nonrehire thereafter, Respondent
has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.8
5. By restraining and coercing Darwin R. Marble in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has restrained and coerced and is restraining
and coercing employees in the exercise of said rights, and
has thereby engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices and each of them
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
V. REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be required to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall
recommend that Respondent notify Marble and Marine in
I It is apparent that the "list of 125" allegedly utilized as a "seniority
list" for employment purposes was a mere device to restrict employment to
Union members, since the list was at all times no more than a union
membership list Unlike Skouras Theaters Corporation, 155 NLRB 157,
166-167, enfd 361 F 2d 826 (C A 3), there has been established in the
instant case a "concrete victimizing instance" (Phelps Dodge Corporation v
N L R B, 313 U S 177, 188), the victim being Marble If, as asserted by
Union President Brill at the hearing, "seniority" refers also to length of
service upon a particular pier, for aught here shown by or known to
Respondent Marble may have greater length of service at the particular
place than the Union member(s) by whom he was, at Respondent's
insistence , ousted from his employment with Marine However, Brill's
testimony also indicates that the "seniority" by specific pier list, which may
not correspond numerically to the "seniority" on the port terminal list, are
each (conceivably with some alleged vintage variety exceptions which have
simply never been expunged and which have not here been credibly
established) "seniority" deriving out of Union membership, i e, deriving
out of being included on the "list of 125" which is concededly no more
than a list of union members Former Union Steward
McGuire-Respondent Union's representative who, as shown, on January
26 removed Marble from his Job-likewise testified, as the Union' s witness:
TRIAL EXAMINER Well, suppose you [as a union member]
work on Pier No 1, let's assume on a hi-lift, today. This would mean
that your seniority on that pier would be from today , is that correct9
THE WITNESS Yes, sir
TRIAL EXAMINER And after working at the end of the day you
would have one day's seniority, is that correct?
THE WITNESS That would be my permanent status.
1047
writing that Respondent has withdrawn its objections to
Marble's employment by Marine as a hi-lift or crane
operator in the job from which he was ousted by
Respondent. I shall further recommend that Respondent be
required to make Marble whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's unlawful conduct,
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned as wages from Marine but
for his discharge at Respondent's behest, less his net
earnings if any during said period, with interest computed
in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Respondent
should also be required to make Marble whole for any
other loss of rights and incidents of the employment
relationship which he may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's unlawful conduct. Pen and Pencil Workers
Union, Local 19593, AFL (Parker Pen Company), 91 NLRB
883. Respondent should further be required to make
available such records for the computation of the foregoing
amounts and the ascertainment of the foregoing matters as
may be in its possession or control.
I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to
post an appropriate notice, which may also be posted by
Marine if desired.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I make the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent, Local 928,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, and
its officers, representatives, and agents shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
a. Causing or attempting to cause Marine Materials
Handling Corporation to discriminate against any employ-
ee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended.
b. In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
TRIAL EXAMINER On that pier, is that correct'?
THE WITNESS. Yes, sir
TRIAL EXAMINER So you could be bumped by someone who
has more than one day's seniority'? Suppose Mr Jones who is not a
member of the union has worked on that pier on a hi-lift for five days,
the entire week before, could he be bumped"
THE WITNESS Because every day it starts at the top of the list
TRIAL EXAMINER And he would have no seniority even
though he worked there five times as long as you, is that correct?
THE WITNESS Yes, I think that's correct
TRIAL EXAMINER The only difference between the two of you
is that you're a union member and he is not a union member'?
THE WITNESS That's right The only time you move up on
the seniority list is somebody ahead of me passes away or drops out or
something like that That is the only time you move up on the
seniority list
TRIAL EXAMINER When you speak of the seniority list, who
does that include i
THE WITNESS Of union members (Trial transcript, pp 58-59 )
It is further clear from the testimony of both McGuire and Brill that,
notwithstanding their confused attempt to portray a daily shapeup as an
invariable practice, union members did in fact occupy some "steady"
longterm jobs with Marine
8 Since it is not charged , nor alleged in the complaint , that the hiring
system here described, or its operation other than as it affected Marble as
here shown, are violative of the Act, I make no finding or conclusion
thereon Cf International Marine Terminals, inc, 137 NLRB 588
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any employee of Marine Materials Handling Corporation
in the exercise of any right under Section 7 of the Act
(exclusive of the extent that such right may be affected by a
valid agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act).
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
a. Forthwith notify Marine Materials Handling Corpo-
ration in writing (with a copy to Darwin R. Marble) that
Respondent withdraws its objections to Marine's employ-
ment of Darwin R. Marble in the job from which Marble
was removed by Respondent's action; and that Respondent
has no objection to Marble's reinstatement thereto or
reemployment therein, or the restoration of his seniority
and all other rights and privileges to the extent they would
have existed if he had not been discharged on January 26,
1970.
b. Forthwith direct any member of Local 928, Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, who may
be occupying the job to which Marble is given the right of
reinstatement under the terms of this Recommended Order,
to relinquish said job to Marble in the event Marble desires
said job, so that Marble may be reinstated therein.
c. Make whole Marble for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set
forth in the "Remedy" portion of this Decision.
d Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all such
records, reports, and papers as may be in Respondent's
possession, custody, or control, necessary, appropriate, or
relating to the backpay or other sums or emoluments or
benefits due hereunder, or to the carrying out in any other
respect of this Recommended Order.
e. Notify Marble, in the event he is serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to
reinstatement upon application after discharge from the
Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948 as amended.
f. Post at Respondent's business offices and meeting
places, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix ." Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 3, shall be duly signed
and posted immediately after receipt thereof and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
g. Return to the Regional Director for Region 3, for
posting by Marine Materials Handling Corporation, if
willing, copies of the notice signed as aforesaid.
h. Notify said Regional Director in writing, within 20
days from receipt of this Decision and Recommended
Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith io
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and Order.
and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals . the words in the Notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " shall be changed
to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
10 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director in
writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO
EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, at which all sides had the opportunity to
present evidence and arguments , the National Labor
Relations Board has decided that this Union has violated
the National Labor Relations Act by causing Marine
Materials Handling Corporation to discharge Darwin R.
Marble from his job as hi-lift operator on January 26, 1970,
because he was not a member of the Union. The National
Labor Relations Board has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Marine
Materials Handling Corporation to discharge or
otherwise discriminate against any employee or pro-
spective employee because he is not a member of the
Union, so as to violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act. (This leaves unaffected the
obligations of employees or prospective employees
under any lawful union-shop provision of any collec-
tive agreement between this Union and Marine
Materials Handling Corporation.)
WE WILL notify Darwin R. Marble and Marine
Materials Handling Corporation that this Union has no
objection to the employment of Marble by Marine
Materials Handling Corporation in the job from which
this Union caused Marble to be discharged; that this
Union has no objection to Marble's reinstatement to
that job, with full seniority and other rights as if he had
not been discharged on January 26, 1970; and we will
instruct any member of this Union who holds that job
to give it up in favor of Marble.
WE WILL pay Darwin R. Marble any loss of earnings
and benefits he has suffered because we caused him to
lose his job on and since January 26, 1970.
WE WILL, in the event Darwin R. Marble is currently
in the Armed Forces of the United States, notify him of
his right to reinstatement upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 as amended
LOCAL 928, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 1049
Local 928, International
Longshoremen's
Association , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT
BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions , may be directed to the Board 's Office,
Fourth Floor , The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue,
Buffalo, New York 14202 , Telephone 716-842-3100.