Local No. 440, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 1068 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local No. 440, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO (Port Arthur Stevedores, Inc.) and Clovis Har-
rison . Case 23-CB-1474
November 20, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
On May 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Local No. 440, South At-
lantic and Gulf Coast District, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, Port Ar-
thur, Texas, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
DECISION
FRANK H . ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge . This case
was tried before me at Port Arthur, Texas, on March 26,
1974. Unfair labor practice charges were filed by Clovis
Harrison on January 8 and an unfair labor practice com-
plaint issued on February 11, 1974. The issue presented is
whether Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act by refus-
ing to refer employee member Harrison for employment
through its exclusive hiring hall facility ; by refusing to as-
sign Harrison to the position of "gang foreman"; and by
apprising employee members that Harrison would not be
referred for work through its hiring hall unless and until he
paid a union "assessment." Upon the entire record before
me, including my observation of the witnesses, and after
due consideration of the briefs filed by all counsel, I make
the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. INTRODUCTION I
The port of Port Arthur is a navigation district in Jeffer-
son County, Texas, which was established by the State of
Texas for the purpose of operating publicly owned wharfs
and docks. Port Arthur Stevedores, Inc., is a Texas corpo-
ration engaged in the stevedoring business at Port Arthur.
During the prior 12-month period, the port of Port Arthur
received gross revenues in excess of $500,000, of which an
amount in excess of $50,000 was received from the perfor-
mance of services for customers whose places of business
are located outside of the State of Texas. Port Arthur Ste-
vedores, Inc., during the same period, has performed ware-
housing services for the port of Port Arthur valued in ex-
cess of $50,000. I find and conclude that Port Arthur Steve-
dores, Inc., is therefore an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Fur-
ther, I find and conclude that Respondent Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent
Union has operated an exclusive hiring hall through which
applicants for general warehouse work are referred for em-
ployment by Port Arthur Stevedores, Inc., and other em-
ployers who are engaged in the stevedoring business in the
Port Arthur area. Eugene Staley is business agent for Re-
spondent Union; Moses Ford is secretary; and Walter
Gray is president. I find and conclude that Staley, Ford,
and Gray were, at all times material, acting as agents of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act.
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Clovis Harrison is a member of Respondent Union and
works out of the Union's hiring hall facility in Port Arthur.
Harrison has been a member of the Union for about 8
years and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was as-
signed a "C" classification by the Union and ranked 11th
in seniority (see Resp. Exh. 3). Business Agent Eugene Sta-
ley acknowledged that employee members or applicants
like Harrison are "automatically" referred out for hiring
"by seniority."
Harrison testified that on December 12, 1973, he report-
ed to the Union's hiring hall about 6:30 a.m. The gang
foremen begin to select employees for referral about 6:45
a.m. And, Foreman Joe Kemp started "making his list" of
employees about that time. Harrison credibly recalled that
the "list" which was being prepared by Kemp that morning
was "the list carrying a nine-man gang on the Red River
Barge Line" and that Kemp "put me [Harrison] down on
the time sheet for a job." However, as Harrison testified:
. shortly after 7, I [Harrison] was getting ready to
1 The findings and conclusions recited herein are based upon the essen-
tially undisputed evidence of record, the admissions contained in the plead-
ings, and the stipulations of the parties
214 NLRB No. 95
LOCAL NO. 440, SOUTH ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST DISTRICT
go to work and then he [Kemp] came out on the porch
and told me that [ Business Agent] Staley had told him
to pull me off there... .
Harrison spoke to Business Agent Staley. Harrison testi-
fied:
.. . [Harrison] asked him [Staley] why he pulled me
off that time sheet. And he [Staley] told me [Harrison]
I was going to the city dock to work out there with
him and if I said anything, I wouldn't go to work at all
2
Harrison complained and then "sat down " Later that
same day, Staley was observed by Harrison "telling fore-
men to take people out"; Staley, however, apprised Harri-
son that Harrison "wasn't going to work."
Harrison credibly testified that on December 19, 1973,
he again reported to the Union's hiring hall about 6:30
a.m. Harrison was given a "time sheet" and instructed to
"carry a gang." J Harrison testified:
I [Harrison] left the hall on the idea that I'm
going to take the gang. And when I got to the City
Dock, Staley told me, he says, I [Staley] got more se-
niority than both of you all and I'm going to carry the
gang....
Harrison acknowledged that Staley , who had greater se-
niority than Harrison , could "carry the gang." Harrison
recalled that:
. . . He [Staley had] taken it [the gang] over and then
about ten minutes later . . . he [Staley] told me [Harn-
son] that he was going to give the gang to Evans Buck-
anan and in the meeting he would explain it, why, if
there was any explaining about it ... .
Harrison told Staley that "it was all right with" him. How-
ever, Buckanan in fact had less seniority than Harrison (see
Resp. Exh. 3).4
Harrison credibly testified that on December 28, 1973,
he went to the union hall to pick up his check. He then
gave Union Secretary Moses Ford $5 for the "building
fund" and requested "a receipt." 5 Ford, however, apprised
2 Employees working at the City Dock were paid a lower hourly rate than
employees were paid at the Red River Barge Line
Although the Union had members and applicants classified as "fore-
men," on occasion it would refer an employee like Harrison to the position
of "gang foreman" if there were insufficient classified "foremen" available
for referral
4 Business Agent Staley in effect acknowledged that "If a gang foreman
leaves , the next man in seniority takes over as gang foreman "
5 Union President Walter Gray testified that the membership previously
had voted "to either rebuild or remodel" the Union's facility in Port Arthur
The existing facility is over 40 years old and is in "extremely dilapidated"
condition Gray explained that the poor and inadequate condition of the
existing facility interferes with the efficient referral of employees As stipu-
lated , "the membership of Respondent decided to establish a building fund
and to levy a $5 00 assessment per month for each member " When
the membership "decided to establish a building fund the discussion
concerned the need to remodel , renovate or totally rebuild the complete
union hall " Further, as stipulated, the "building fund assessment was levied
1069
Harrison that Harrison owed $10 to the Union for the
"building fund." Harrison asserted that he only owed $5
and Harrison went to speak to Business Agent Staley. Sta-
ley apprised Harrison that "if the secretary said I [Harri-
son] owed [$10], then that's what he go by ...." Harrison
then spoke to Union President Gray. Harrison explained to
Gray that during July 1973 he had been in a serious auto-
mobile accident and, as a result, did not work for some
3-1/2 months. Harrison had returned to work about Octo-
ber 15, 1973. Accordingly, Harrison assertedly "had thirty
days grace from the day [he had] returned to work." Fol-
lowing Harrison's discussion with Gray, Harrison asked
Ford to return his payment. Harrison recalled that Ford
returned Harrison's payment.
Harrison credibly testified that during the early morning
of December 31, 1973, a gang was selected .6 Harrison had
less seniority than the persons who were initially selected
for this gang. Harrison left the Union hall and returned
later that morning. Harrison observed that Staley-one of
the persons selected for the gang-was in the hall. Harrison
asked Staley: "was he [Staley] going to add on another
gang at 10 [a.m.] . . . and he [Staley] told me [Harrison]
no." Harrison then said to Staley: "I thought you were
supposed to be working ...." Staley "mumbled" a re-
sponse which Harrison could not understand. Harrison
then drove out to the City Dock where the gang was work-
ing. There, Harrison observed that employee Roosevelt
White was working on the gang. White had less seniority
than Harrison and was not one of the persons who initially
had been selected for the gang.
Harrison also credibly recalled that on January 3, 1974,
he appeared at the union hall about 6:30 a.m. Harrison
observed that his name was "posted for owing the assess-
ment . . . for the building fund." Harrison observed that
he was listed as owing $10. Staley apprised the membership
at the union hall: "those who didn't pay their building fund
wasn't going to work." Harrison testified:
Then, he [Staley] called me and asked me, was I going
to pay it . . . . I told him I was willing to pay the $5
that I owe, but I didn't feel like I owed no $10.1
Staley told Harrison that Harrison "wasn't going [to work]
unless [Harrison] paid $10." Harrison refused to pay $10
and, as a result, "didn't go to work then .. .." Other em-
ployee members with less seniority than Harrison were sent
out to work that day.
Harrison credibly testified that he appeared at the Union
hall about 6.30 a.m. on January 7, 1974. Harrison asked
Foreman Joe Kemp if Harrison was on "his gang." Kemp
said, no. Later that morning, Staley asked Harrison if Har-
nson wanted to work in employee Calvin Plowden's
"place." Harrison told Staley. "I was here to work in my
only against members of Respondent and not against any other employee
who used the exclusive hiring hall referral facilities of Respondent."
6 Counsel for Respondent notes in his brief that this gang was a 5-man
and not a 10-man gang as claimed
7 Harrison explained that he did not owe $10 "because I [Harrison] re-
turned to work on October 15" following his accident in July Consequently,
as Harrison further explained "I was given 30 days grace That means from
October 15 to November And so, for November 15 to December, that
would be [one ] month and that 's what I wanted to pay for 11
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
own place...." Staley asked Harrison, "do I [Harrison)
want to work or not, and I [Harrison] said yes." Harrison
was sent to work that morning. On the following morning,
January 8, approximately three or four employee members
with less seniority than Harrison were sent out from the
Union hall. Harrison "asked the gang foreman Joe Kemp
if he had me [Harrison] on his gang and he [Kemp] told me
[Harrison] no again ...." 8
III. DISCUSSION
The Board, in International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local 18 (William F. Murphy), 204 NLRB 681 (1974),
stated in part as follows:
... when a union prevents an employee from being
hired or causes an employee's discharge , it has demon-
strated its influence over the employee and its power
to affect his livelihood in so dramatic a way that we
will infer-or, if you please , adopt a presumption
that-the effect of its action is to encourage union
membership on the part of all employees who have
perceived that exercise of power [citing Radio Officers'
Union v . N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17 (1954)]. But the infer-
ence may be overcome , or the presumption rebutted,
not only when the interference with employment was
pursuant to a valid union-security clause , but also in
instances where the facts show that the union action
was necessary to the effective performance of its func-
tion of representing its constituency... .
8I have credited the testimony of Harrison as summarized above His
testimony , as summarized , impressed me as a trustworthy and reliable ac-
count of the incidents recited herein . Further, Harrison's testimony was in
part substantiated by the testimony of Ford, Staley, Kemp, and Gray Inso-
far as the testimony of Harrison differs with the testimony of Ford, Staley,
Kemp, and Gray, upon the entire record before me including the demeanor
of the witnesses, I am persuaded that Harrison's testimony as stated herein
is more reliable and trustworthy.
In particular, I do not credit Staley's assertion that on the morning when
employee Buckanan was designated foreman, Harrison "wasn't at the hall
I do not credit Staley's assertion that he could not "recall" any occasion
when "Harrison was not given any work when he was there and presented
himself for work in accordance with his seniority " Staley at times appeared
vague and evasive And, as stated, I find the testimony of Harrison to be
more reliable and credible Likewise, I do not credit Kemp's assertion that
"I [Kemp] never recall refusing to put him [Harrison ] on my gang according
to his seniority at the time." Nor do I credit Staley's assertion that he select-
ed White as his replacement on December 31 because Staley had
"wrenched" his back Staley claimed that White happened to be "passing"
by the job and Staley asked White to take his place I am persuaded instead
that Staley fabricated this explanation in an attempt to justify his disregard
of Union seniority procedures
The court reporter noted at p 211 of the transcript (The reporter was
unable to complete the transcript because her apartment was ransacked and
her equipment and stenotype notes were stolen The transcript is missing an
estimated one to two pages of examination of the final witness and the
closing argument of counsel .) I have accepted the stipulation of the parties,
which is made a part of this record, in lieu of the missing few pages of
transcribed testimony and closing statements Counsel for General Counsel
moves to strike two documents appended to Respondent's brief because
they are not a part of the record. I have, of course, not relied on the docu-
ments since they were not offered or received into evidence Counsel for
Respondent's posthearing request that I should consider these exhibits is
denied as improper. The record shows no justification for granting this be-
lated request
In Murphy, supra, respondent asserted that it had been de-
nied an opportunity "to establish that its purpose in deny-
ing Murphy his normal seniority on the referral list was not
unlawful , by proving that he had engaged in offensive con-
duct at the hiring hall and also had engaged in conduct
disruptive of an internal union election ...." The Board
concluded that such proof would not overcome the infer-
ence or rebut the presumption "that respondent's interfer-
ence with the employee 's employment operated unlawfully
to discourage union membership." The Board reasoned:
While it might well be convenient for the union, in
enforcing its own internal rules of conduct, to have
available an employment related sanction , it can hard-
ly be said that such severe sanctions are necessary to
that end . Internal union discipline-fines, suspension,
expulsion from membership , and the like-ought sure-
ly to be adequate for this purpose . Thus, while the
evidence proferred here might indeed show that the
union had no intent to encourage union membership
by interfering with Murphy's employment, yet the dis-
play of union power exhibited by an exercise of con-
trol over employment opportunity solely for reasons
relating to the conduct of an employee as a union
member would necessarily have that effect .
Accordingly, the Board concluded that respondent had
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.'
Previously , in Radio Officers' Union v . N L.R.B, 347 U.S.
17, 40-42 ( 1954), the Supreme Court stated in part as fol-
lows:
The policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs
from their organizational rights.... Thus §§ 8(a)(3)
and 8(b)(2) were designed to allow employees to freely
exercise their right to join unions, be good, bad, or
indifferent members, or abstain from joining any
union without imperiling their livelihood. The only li-
mitation Congress has chosen to impose on this right
is specified in the proviso to §8(a)(3) which authorizes
employers to enter into certain union security con-
tracts, but prohibits discharge under such contracts if
membership "was not available to the employee on
the same terms and conditions generally applicable to
other members" or if "membership was denied or ter-
minated for reasons other than the failure of the em-
ployee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation
fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or
retaining membership." ... Lengthy legislative de-
bate preceded the 1947 amendment to the Act which
thus limited permissible employer discrimination
This legislative history clearly indicates that Congress
intended to prevent utilization of union security agree-
ments for any purpose other than to compel payment of
union dues and fees. Thus Congress recognized the va-
9The Board noted , inter aha, cases where it had found no violation be-
cause "the union's actions , while incidentally encouraging union member-
ship, were nevertheless essential to its effective representation of employ-
ees "
LOCAL NO. 440, SOUTH ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST DISTRICT
Iidity of unions' concern about "free riders," i.e., em-
ployees who receive the benefits of union representa-
tion but are unwilling to contribute their share of fi-
nancial support to such union, and gave unions the
power to contract to meet that problem while with-
holding from unions the power to cause the discharge
of employees for any other reason. . . . Thus an em-
ployer can discharge an employee for nonmembership
in a union if the employer has entered a union security
contract valid under the Act with such union, and if
the other requirements of the proviso are met. No
other discrimination aimed at encouraging employees
tojoin, retain membership, or stay in good standing in
a union is condoned. . .
From the foregoing it is clear that the Eighth Circuit
too restrictively interpreted the term "membership" in
Teamsters. Boston was discriminated against by his em-
ployer because he was delinquent in a union obligation.
Thus he was denied employment to which he was other-
wise entitled for no reason other than this tardy payment
of union dues. The union caused this discrimination by
applying a rule apparently aimed at encouraging
prompt payment of dues. The union's action was not
sanctioned by a valid union security contract, and, in any
event , the union did not choose to terminate Boston's
membership for his delinquency. Thus the union by re-
questing such discrimination, and the employer by
submitting to such an illegal request, deprived Boston
of the right guaranteed by the Act to join in or abstain
from union activities without thereby affecting his job
.... [Emphasis supplied.]
Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case, I
find and conclude that Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act when it failed and refused
to comply with its seniority procedures in refusing to refer
employee member Harrison for work. Thus, Respondent
Union operates an exclusive hiring hall through which ap-
plicants for general warehouse work are referred for em-
ployment by Port Arthur Stevedores, Inc., and other em-
ployers engaged in the stevedoring business in the Port
Arthur area. Referrals of employees like Harrison are
made by seniority. However, as the credited evidence sum-
marized above shows, Respondent failed to apply and ig-
nored its seniority procedures on December 12, 1973, when
employee Harrison was summarily removed from the
"gang list" previously prepared by Foreman Kemp and,
instead, instructed to work at the City Dock for a lower
hourly rate. Harrison was told by Business Agent Staley,
"if [Harrison] said anything [he] wouldn't go to work at all
.." Harrison complained and he was not referred for
work that day. Respondent Union again failed to apply
and ignored its seniority procedures on December 19, 1973,
when it summarily replaced Harrison as "gang foreman"
with employee Buckanan. Buckanan had less seniority
than Harrison.10 And, Respondent Union similarly failed
10 As stated supra, employees like Harrison are referred on occasion for
the position of "gang foreman " There is no contention that the Union's
1071
to apply and ignored its seniority procedures on December
31, 1973, when Business Agent Staley selected employee
White as his replacement on a "gang" instead of employee
Harrison. White has less seniority than Harrison. There is
no credible evidence of record justifying Respondent's fail-
ure and refusal to comply with its seniority procedures in
the above instances. Consequently, here, as in Murphy, su-
pra, it is "presumed" or "inferred" that the "effect of the
[Union's] action is to encourage Union membership on the
part of all employees who have perceived that exercise of
power . ..." And, Respondent has not sufficiently dem-
onstrated by credible evidence that its "action was neces-
sary to the effective performance of its function of repre-
senting its constituency. .. ." In sum, I find and conclude
that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
8(b)(2) of the Act.
A more difficult problem is presented with respect to
Respondent's subsequent refusal to refer employee Harri-
son for work in January 1974 because he assertedly was
not current in his payments to the Union's building fund
assessment. The record establishes that Respondent
Union's hall in Port Arthur was and is in serious need of
repair and, consequently, a determination to restore, re-
pair, or rebuild the facility was certainly reasonable and
necessary in order for the Union to perform, inter aka, its
referral services. The record shows that the Union's mem-
bership determined to establish a building fund and, ac-
cordingly, to levy a $5 assessment each month against
members in order to remodel, renovate, or totally rebuild
the complete union hall. The $5 monthly assessment was
levied only against members and not against any other em-
ployee who used Respondent's exclusive hiring hall facility.
Harrison was not current in paying his building fund as-
sessment during January 1974. And, Respondent refused
to refer Harrison for employment on January 3 and 8,
1974.
However, I am persuaded, on this record, that Harrison
in fact only owed $5 to the building fund because of his
extended absence from employment following an automo-
bile accident; that Harrison was willing to pay the $5 to the
Union; and that Harrison was refused referral by the
Union during January because he would not pay to the
Union an amount which he did not owe under the Union's
existing procedures. I find and conclude that the refusal to
refer Harrison under these circumstances violated Section
8(b)(l)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act. Surely, the Union's ac-
tion was, on this record, not "necessary to the effective
performance of its function of representing its constituency
... " William F Murphy, supra. Alternatively, I would
find and conclude that Respondent's action violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) even if Harrison owed the full
amount as demanded by the Union. Here, as in Radio Offi-
cers, supra, Harrison "was discriminated against" because
he was "delinquent in a Union obligation." He was "de-
nied employment to which he was otherwise entitled for no
reason other than his tardy payment of" a Union assess-
ment." "The Union's action was not sanctioned by a valid
Union security contract, and, in any event, the Union did
refusal to refer an employee to this position is beyond the protection of the
Act See, e g, Floyd H Sexton, 207 NLRB 359 (1973).
11 In Radio Officers , the employee was denied employment because of his
"tardy payment of Union dues "
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not choose to terminate" Harrison's membership for his
"delinquency." (Ibid.) The assessment was levied only
against union members and not against other employees
utilizing the referral facilities of the Union. In sum, Re-
spondent deprived Harrison of his right guaranteed in the
Act to join in or abstain from union activities without
thereby affecting his job, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(bx2).12 And, Respondent Union further violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by, in effect, apprising its members that
they too would not be referred for work unless and until
they paid the foregoing building fund assessment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Local No. 440, South Atlantic and Gulf
Coast District, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Port Arthur Stevedores, Inc., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
3. Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
8(b)(2) of the Act by refusing to refer employee Clovis
Harrison for employment on December 12, 19, 31, 1973,
and January 3 and 8, 1974. Respondent Union further vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by apprising its mem-
bers that they would not be referred for work through the
Union's exclusive hiring hall unless and until they paid the
Union's building fund assessment.
4. The unfair labor practices found herein affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is found
necessary that Respondent Union cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices found and from engaging in like
or related invasions of employee Section 7 rights; take cer-
tain affirmative action, including making whole Clovis
Harrison with backpay computed on a quarterly basis, plus
interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962); post at its Port
Arthur, Texas, facility appropriate notices; and mail copies
of said notice to Port Arthur Stevedores, Inc., for posting if
it is willing to do so.
To facilitate the computation of backpay and to assure
Harrison equal referral treatment, Respondent shall main-
tain and make available to the Board or its agents, upon
request, job registration records and any other documents
or records showing job referrals and the basis for such
work assignments of employees, members, applicants, and
registrants. Respondent shall further notify Port Arthur
12 Counsel for General Counsel argues that the Union "allowed others
who had not paid such assessment to work while at the same time [it] denied
Harrison his lawful right to work irrespective of whether he had paid the
assessment or not" The record is not sufficiently clear in this respect I
therefore do not predicate my finding of a violation upon this asserted
disparate enforcement of the assessment
Stevedores, Inc., that use of its hiring hall facilities will be
available to Harrison on an equal basis with other regis-
trants with respect to job referrals.
ORDER I3
Respondent Local No. 440, South Atlantic and Gulf
Coast District, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO, Port Arthur, Texas, its officers, agents, and rep-
resentatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to grant referrals from its exclusive hiring
hall facilities, which are operated pursuant to contract or
other arrangements with employers, to Clovis Harrison or
any other member, employee, job applicant, or registrant,
on an equal and nondiscriminatory basis, by refusing to
refer employees for employment in accordance with
Respondent's seniority procedures or because employee
members have failed to pay to Respondent a building fund
assessment , and from otherwise causing or attempting to
cause employers to discriminate against members, employ-
ees, job applicants, or registrants, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) Telling employee members that they will not be re-
ferred for work through Respondent's exclusive hiring hall
unless and until they pay to Respondent a building fund
assessment.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Clovis Harrison for any loss of earnings
which he may have sustained by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him in the manner set forth in this Decision.
(b) Notify in writing Port Arthur Stevedores, Inc., and
Clovis Harrison that the Union's exclusive hiring hall facil-
ities and job opportunities will be available to Harrison on
an equal and nondiscriminatory basis with other members,
employees, job applicants, and registrants.
(c) Maintain and upon request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying job regis-
tration and referral records and any other documents or
records showing job referrals and work assignments, and
the basis for making such referrals and assignments of
members, employees, job applicants, and registrants, which
are necessary to compute and analyze the amount of back-
pay due to Harrison and his right to referral to jobs under
the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its business offices, hiring hall, and meeting
places in Port Arthur, Texas, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, on forms
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 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
14 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
LOCAL NO 440, SOUTH ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST DISTRICT 1073
provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily post-
ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Additional copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix" shall be signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent and forthwith returned to the afore-
said Regional Director for posting by Port Arthur Steve-
dores, Inc., said employer being willing, at its place of busi-
ness at Port Arthur, Texas, where notices to its employees
are customarily posted.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Oi der, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
WE WILL NOT refuse to grant job referrals from our
exclusive hiring hall facilities to Clovis Harrison, or
any other member, employee, job applicant, or regis-
trant on an equal and nondiscriminatory basis, by re-
fusing to refer employees for employment in accor-
dance with our seniority procedures or because em-
ployee members have failed to pay to us a building
fund assessment.
WE WILL NOT tell our employee members that they
will not be referred for work through our exclusive
hiring hall unless and until they pay to us a building
fund assessment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Clovis Harrison for any loss of
earnings he may have sustained by reason of the dis-
crimination against him.
WE WILL notify Clovis Harrison, in writing, that the
Union's exclusive hiring hall facilities and job oppor-
tunities will be available to him on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis with other members, employees,
job applicants, and registrants.
APPENDIX
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
LOCAL 440, SOUTH ATLANTIC
AND GULF COAST DISTRICT,
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO
To Members, Employees, Registrants, and all other job ap-
plicants using our exclusive hiring hall facilities: