Local Un. No. 630, Plumbers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 524 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 630 , United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO (Ebasco Services , Incorporated) and
Daniel E. Jurmanovich , John M. Ackerman, David
R. Lambert, and Fred Gene Raby. Cases
12-CB-1500, 12-CB-1518, 12-CB-1536, and
12-CB-1549
January 22, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Daniel E. Jurmanovich in Case 12-CB-1500 on October 2,
1974, a complaint was issued on December 27, 1974. The
complaint was first amended on January 31, 1975, to con-
solidate Case 12-CB-1500 with the charge filed by John
Ackerman in Case 12-CB-1518 on November 29, 1974. A
second amendment to complaint was issued on April 17,
1975, to consolidate the two prior charges with the charge
in Case 12-CB-1536 filed by David Lambert on February
7, 1975. A third amendment to the complaint was issued
on May 29, 1975, to consolidate the three prior charges
with the charge in Case 12-CB-1549 filed by Fred Raby on
March 21, 1975, and amended on May 22, 1975. On June
10 and 11, 1975, hearing was held in Coral Gables, Florida.
Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief of Re-
spondent and General Counsel's supplement to oral argu-
ment, I make the following:
On August 26, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Henry L. Jalette issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
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 brief
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 the Respondent, Local Union No. 630,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the Unit-
ed States and Canada, AFL-CIO, West Palm Beach,
Florida, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY L. JALETTE, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding involves allegations that the above-named Union
discriminated against the above-named Charging Parties in
the operation of an exclusive hiring hall because they were
not members of the Union and/or had incurred the disfa-
vor of the Union's agents.[ Pursuant to a charge filed by
1 The allegations of the complaint respecting Charging Party Lambert
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE FACTUAL SETTING
Respondent is located in West Palm Beach, Florida. The
complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that at all times
material herein Respondent was party to an exclusive hir-
ing hall practice and arrangement with various employers,
including Ebasco Services, Incorporated (hereinafter re-
ferred to as Ebasco),3 pursuant to which Respondent was
the exclusive source of all journeymen pipefitters and pipe-
fitter welders to be employed by such employers. Accord-
ing to uncontradicted testimony of Respondent' s witnesses,
which I credit, Respondent maintains three out-of-work
lists for use in making referrals. The group I list consists of
applicants with 1,200 hours of work within the territorial
jurisdiction of Respondent for 2 consecutive years. The
group 2 list consists of all other applicants, exclusive of
apprentices who are on the third list. Although the com-
plaint alleges discrimination against the three Charging
Parties in Respondent's failure to refer them to employ-
ment, there is no allegation in the complaint that member-
ship in Respondent is a condition for registration on either
list, nor does the complaint allege the maintenance and
enforcement of a discriminatory hiring practice or arrange-
ment.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Fred Gene Raby
Raby is a pipefitter who was employed by Ebasco from
July 1972 to March 10, 1975, when he was terminated for
excessive absenteeism . On March 17, 1975, he registered on
the Group 1 out-of-work list . Since that date he has re-
ceived no referral.
were dismissed at the hearing on motion of General Counsel for failure to
appear.
2 General Counsel 's motion to correct the record, which is unopposed, is
hereby granted
7 Jurisdiction is not in issue . The complaint alleges, the answer admits,
and I find that Ebasco meets the Board 's $50,000 direct inflow standard for
the assertion of, jurisdiction.
222 NLRB No. 82
LOCAL UN. NO. 630, PLUMBERS 525
The complaint alleges in Raby's case that "Since on or
about March 15, 1975, and continuing to date, Respondent
caused Raby to lose an undetermined number of employ-
ment opportunities by failing to maintain his name in its
proper order on the out-of-work list for job referrals, be-
cause of his lack of membership in Respondent and/or
because of his membership in another labor organization, a
sister local of Respondent."
The record indicates that Raby is a member of a sister
local of Respondent and that he was unsuccessful in his
attempts to become a member of Respondent. The General
Counsel contends that Respondent's agents entertained an-
imus against Raby because of his attempts to become a
member and for that reason did not maintain Raby's name
in its proper order on the out-of-work list. Assuming, ar-
guendo, that Respondent's agents entertained animus
against Raby, I conclude that the complaint must never-
theless be dismissed because General Counsel failed to es-
tablish by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent
failed to maintain Raby's name in proper order on the
out-of-work list.
The only evidence that Raby's name was not maintained
in proper order on the out-of-work list consisted of his
testimony that he signed his name on a legal pad which
had four or five other signatures above where he signed,
that he returned to the hiring hall a week or so later to find
that the list was not typewritten and he was 19th or 20th on
the list, and that he returned to the hall on May 2 and he
was then 20th or 25th on the list.
Raby's testimony is not really disputed. The question is:
what did it prove. According to Virginia Fishel, a secretary
employed by Respondent, periodically the handwritten
out-of-work lists are typed up and updated by removing
the names of all registrants who have been referred. In
typing up the list, Fishel testified she typed up the names in
order of registration, including the date of registration. Ex-
amined from the then current typewritten out-of-work list
(which neither party offered in evidence) she testified Raby
was 25th on list. Examined from the out-of-work list signed
by Raby (which neither party offered in evidence) she testi-
fied Raby was fouth on the page which he signed, but it
had not been the first page of the list.
In short, Fishel corroborated Raby's visual observations,
but from her testimony, if credited, it is evident that Raby's
name was not changed from its proper order as alleged in
the complaint. There is no basis whatsoever not to credit
Fishel. Accordingly, and as General Counsel has failed to
establish that any pipefitters were referred to employment
who had either not registered or registered after Raby, I
shall recommend dismissal of the complaint with regard to
him.
B. Daniel Jurmanovich
1. The facts
Jurmanovich is a pipefitter-welder and a member of
Steamfitters Local 601 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. From
early March 1973 until May 22, 1974, he was employed as
a welder by Ebasco. He obtained the job through referral
by Respondent. On May 22, 1974, Jurmanovich was termi-
nated and a notation was made on his termination slip that
he was not eligible for rehire. Jurmanovich testified that
the following day he went to the hiring hall where he told
Assistant Business Agent Jack Cook of his termination and
that he asked Cook about work and about signing an out-
of-work list and Cook told him that there was no out-of-
work list for travelers. At that time, or shortly thereafter,
Jurnamovich went north for vacation and to work. Return-
ing to Florida on either the 15th or 16th of August, he
returned to the hiring hall to inquire about work and again
asked Cook about signing the out-of-work list and Cook
again said that there was no out-of-work list for travelers.
Despite these rebuffs, Jurmanovich kept visiting the hir-
mg hall for work and on September 9 Business Manager
Jack Stevens referred him to work at Ebasco. According to
Jurmanovich, however, in making the referral Stevens told
him that he was doing so provided Jurmanovich agreed to
cooperate and drag up on the job if Stevens asked him.
Jurmanovich explained that this meant that if Stevens had
another man (by necessary implication a member of Re-
spondent) that he wanted to put on the job occupied by
Jurmanovich, Jurmanovich would leave at Stevens' re-
quest.
When Jurmanovich reported to Ebasco he was rejected
because of the notation on his termination slip. Thereafter,
Jurmanovich contacted Ebasco representative, Paul Rose,
to explain his situation and after some consultation among
representatives of Ebasco, Jurmanovich was advised that
Ebasco would rehire him but he would need another refer-
ral because several days had elapsed since his earlier refer-
ral. Jurmanovich returned to the hiring hall and explained
what had happened to Stevens. Stevens would not give him
another referral unless he received word from a representa-
tive of Ebasco. Because of the absence of Ebasco represen-
tative Paul Rose, there was a delay of a few days. However,
on September 20, Rose spoke to Stevens and verified that
Ebasco would rehire Jurmanovich, and Jurmanovich was
issued a referral.
2. Analysis and conclusions
The complaint alleges that since on or about May 23,
1974, to on or about September 9, 1974, Respondent
caused Ebasco and other employers to refuse to hire Jur-
manovich by failing to refer him to employment because of
his lack of membership in Respondent. It is further alleged
that Respondent violated the Act by Stevens' conditioning
the giving of a referral to Jurmanovich on September 9 on
Jurmanovich's agreement to drag up. Essential to these
allegations is the credibility of Jurmanovich. If he is cred-
ited, it would appear that the allegations of the complaint
have been sustained.
Cook denied refusing to permit Jurmanovich to sign an
out-of-work list and Respondent asserts he should be cred-
ited. In support of this assertion, Respondent adduced tes-
timony by Joe Jones, union steward at Ebasco, that on the
night of May 22 Jurmanovich was angry about being fired
and when Jones told him he could do nothing about it,
Jurmanovich said "the hell with this goddam place; I'm
going back home." In light of these remarks by Jurmano-
vich, which were' not denied, and the undisputed fact that
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he had planned a vacation for June 15 and did, in fact,
return to Wisconsin, Respondent argues that a finding is
warranted that Jurmanovich did not even appear at the
hiring hall on May 23, much less ask to sign an out-of-work
list. I am not persuaded that such facts justify rejecting
Jurmanovich's testimony. I see nothing inconsistent with
Jurmanovich's remark to Jones and his appearance at the
union hall the following day. Understandably he was angry
at being terminated and his remark could as well have had
reference to his impending vacation plans as to a perma-
nent return to Wisconsin. In the final analysis, it is clear he
did not return home, except temporarily.
Respondent next contends that Jurmanovich' s assertion
that Cook refused to let him sign the out-of-work list is
belied by the evidence that travelers are in fact permitted
to sign the list. Apart from the testimonial assertions of
Respondent' s witnesses , Respondent adduced no evidence
that travelers are in fact permitted to sign the list. As I
noted earlier, no out-of-work lists were introduced into evi-
dence. Presumably, an examination of such lists and iden-
tification of registrants would have indicated whether or
not travelers are permitted to sign to a significant extent.
As the record stands, only Raby and John Ackerman are
shown to have signed a list, and Raby signed after the
issuance of complaints herein. On a record such as this, I
am not prepared to discredit Jurmanovich. In the final
analysis, I deem Jurmanovich a much more credible wit-
ness than Cook. Cook did not impress me favorably; to the
contrary, I am persuaded that Cook would act precisely as
Jurmanovich described.
I conclude, therefore, that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(2) and (1)A) of the Act by Cook's refusal to permit
Jurmanovich to sign an out-of-work list. This conclusion is
dictated by the fact that Cook's refusal was expressly based
on an unlawful consideration, namely, Jurmanovich's sta-
tus as a traveler and nonmember, and the fact that Re-
spondent maintains an exclusive hiring practice or arrange-
ment with many employers. By refusing to permit
Jurmanovich to sign the out-of-work list, Respondent
caused all such employers to discriminate against Jurma-
novich. While the record does not show that Respondent
actually made referrals to such employers after May 22, the
absence of such a showing is a matter of remedy and back-
pay, and not a basis for finding no violation.
In any event, it is clear that Respondent referred welders
to Ebasco after May 22 and before September 9, and based
on Ebasco's ready assent to the reemployment of Jurmano-
vich in September, it is reasonable to infer, as I do, that but
for Respondent's refusal to permit Jurmanovich to sign the
out-of-work list on May 22, 1974, he would have been re-
ferred to employment with Ebasco and would have been
employed before September 9. The precise date can be de-
termined in compliance.
As to Jurmanovich's assertion that Stevens conditioned
his referral on September 9 on his agreement to drag up, I
credit Jurmanovich. I, do so in part because Stevens ap-
pears to confirm that the subject of dragging up was dis-
cussed with Jurmanovich, and while Stevens implied that
Jurmanovich brought up the subject, I can perceive no rea-
son for him to have done so. Conditioning the making of a
referral to an applicant who is not a member of Respon-
dent on his leaving the job to permit substitution of a mem-
ber of Respondent constitutes an attempt to cause discrim-
ination in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act and re-
straint and coercion of employees in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
C. John Ackerman
1. The facts
Ackerman is a pipefitter and a member of Local 120 in
Cleveland, Ohio, a sister local of Respondent. He was em-
ployed by Ebasco from April 1, 1973, to August 2, 1974,
when he was terminated in a reduction in force. On August
5, he went to the hiring hall and told Jack Stevens that he
had been laid off. Ackerman testified that Stevens re-
marked that Ackerman had probably been laid off because
he had filed intraunion charges against Bill Johnson, a
member of Respondent and general foreman at Ebasco.
Ackerman also testified, that he asked Stevens about work
and Stevens said he might try to get him a job as soon as he
could.
Ackerman had been accompanied by-a member of Re-
spondent who asked if Ackerman could be cleared into
Respondent, that is, become a member of Respondent. Ste-
vens said not then, but at a later date. Ackerman left with-
out asking to sign the out-of-work list. Thereafter, Acker-
man went to the hall to inquire about work two or three
times a week and called at other times, all without success.
When he asked about work, Stevens always replied he
would keep trying to get Ackerman something.
On September 3, Ackerman went to the hall and spoke
to Assistant Business Agent Cook. He asked Cook if he
had any work and Cook said "No, not for me." At this,
Ackerman produced a transfer card which he had obtained
from his home local, signed it and presented it to Cook.
Cook said, "What the hell is this?" "Do you know what
you are doing?" "Don't you know the rules and the laws in
that," and, throwing the card on the table, "Why don't
you pick it up and get out of here?" Ackerman refused to
leave at first and things got "pretty huffy." He was induced
to leave at the suggestion of another assistant business
agent, leaving his transfer card on the table.
The following day Ackerman called Stevens who ac-
cused him of pulling a blunder and suggested Ackerman
pick up his card. Ackerman-asked about a job and Stevens
said, "I ain't gonna give you no job." Ackerman asked
about a travel card and Stevens said he'd give him one if he
picked up his transfer card. Stevens refused to pick up his
transfer card and Stevens said, "Well, if you want to make
a fight of it, I'll meet you in the middle of the ring." Acker-
man testified he agreed, but they never did. Thereafter, he
left Florida to work in Wyoming.
On October 15, Ackerman sent a telegram to the Inter-
national Union advising it of Respondent's refusal to
transfer him into its membership and its refusal to give him
a travel card. Ackerman did not send a copy of the tele-
gram to Respondent and there is no direct evidence that it
received a copy from the International, but it is evident
that Respondent was apprised of the telegram because on
November 1, Ackerman went to the hall and spoke to Ste-
LOCAL UN. NO. 630, PLUMBERS 527
vens, who knew he was coming. Stevens told Ackerman
that he could accept him into Local 630 himself or he could
have the International shove Ackerman and others down
his throat, but that if the International wanted to shove
Ackerman down his throat he could make it a little rough
on him. Ackerman told him he would prefer to handle the
matter on a local basis and they talked for a half hour or 45
minutes. According to Ackerman, he thought they reached
an agreement and he was to appear before the
Respondent's executive board in connection with his desire
to transfer into Respondent. As their meeting concluded,
Stevens led Ackerman to Cook's office and told Cook to let
Ackerman sign the out-of-work list. Ackerman then signed
the group 2 list. (Ackerman did not have the requirements
for registration on the group 1 list.)
On November 13, Ackerman was interviewed by the ex-
ecutive board and on November 14 Stevens told him that
the executive board had given him permission to transfer
into Respondent at his discretion. A day or two later, Ack-
erman was referred to what he described as a boilermaker
job. Ackerman went to the job and decided not to take it
because the boilermakers were on strike. Thereafter, Ack-
erman kept trying to obtain work through the hall with no
success. On November 27, he talked to Stevens who re-
marked to him "they're really coming in now; they're real-
ly packing in," and "things are bad." Ackerman took Ste-
vens- remarks to mean that local people were coming to the
hall for work.
On November 29, Ackerman spoke to Stevens about
transferring into the local and Stevens told him no, not
then, because it would be political suicide for him; On De-
cember 15 Ackerman went to the hall and he testified
either Cook or Stevens said he was going to put him to
work,-they were going to pick out a good job for him. He
testified they made up a list for him to sign and Ackerman
signed a group 2 list. Ackerman testified that Stevens said
he was going to put him to work but they were going to
find a good job for him. Ackerman did not know why he
had to sign another list, nor- did he ask. Sometime thereaf-
ter, he was referred to a job.
2. Analysis and conclusions _
In Ackerman's case, the complaint alleges three viola-
tions of the Act: that Respondent restrained and coerced
Ackerman by Stevens' remark on August 5 that Ackerman
was probably terminated by Ebasco because he filed
charges against its general foreman and union member Bill
Johnson; that since on or about August 12, 1974, Respon-
dent caused Ebasco and other employers to refuse to hire
Ackerman by failing to refer him to employment because
he was not a member of Respondent and/or had incurred
the disfavor of its agents; and that Respondent restrained
and coerced Ackerman by Stevens' remark on November
1, that he could make it a little rough on him if he tried to
get the International to force Respondent to accept him
into membership.
As to the remark by Stevens concerning the reason for
Ackerman's termination by Ebasco, the remark in no way
suggested or implied that Respondent had played any part
in Ackerman's termination. Rather, Stevens attributed the
termination to the rancor of a union member who used his
supervisory position in reprisal for Ackerman's preferring
intraunion charges against him. In other words, Johnson
acted in his capacity as an employer representative and not
as an agent of Respondent. This was the burden of Stevens'
remark to Ackerman: Under the circumstances, the remark
cannot be held violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
As to the allegation of an unlawful failure to refer, the
record contains much testimony about Ackerman's unsuc-
cessful attempts to transfer his membership from the
Cleveland local to Respondent and Stevens' resistance to
such attempts, including a threat to "make it a little rough
on" Ackerman if he persisted. In other words, animus is
clear, and I find that Respondent was opposed to transfer-
ring travelers from membership in a sister local to member-
ship in it. The difficulty with General Counsel's case, how-
ever, is that neither in oral argument, nor in his supplement
to oral argument, has he indicated when, where or how
Respondent discriminated against Ackerman.
In the first place, as noted earlier, Respondent operates a
hiring hall pursuant to an exclusive hiring practice or ar-
rangement with a number of employers and there is no
allegation that the hiring practice or arrangement is unlaw-
ful. It is undisputed that in furtherance of this hiring prac-
tice or arrangement Respondent maintains out-of-work
lists, and, according to Respondent's witnesses, except in
cases where the lists are depleted, referrals are made from
the lists in order of registration. There is no probative evi-
dence to refute Respondent's witnesses. Ackerman implied
by his testimony that referrals were made without regard to
the out-of-work lists, but there is no evidence to support a
finding to such effect. Accordingly, since Ackerman did
not sign an, out-of-work list until November 1, there is no
basis for a finding of discrimination against him before
that date.
General Counsel appears to be contending that Acker-
man was excused from signing an out-of-work list because
he received assurances of employment from Stevens. I am
not persuaded he did, but in any event it is clear that
Ackerman's failure to sign an out-of-work list before No-
vember 1, was based on a voluntary decision on his part.
Thus, in explaining why he did not sign a list, he stated,
"I'd be a smart guy then. It was, the way I felt myself. I
would just be jeopardizing myself. Better I try to go along
with them. I got a better chance of getting a job than ask-
ing for a list. That's the reason I never asked for a list." It
is evident from this testimony that Ackerman believed Re-
spondent operated a hiring hall which gave preference to
its members and he hoped by not signing the out-of-work
list and not putting any pressure on Stevens that he would
be the beneficiary of a discriminatory referral system. In
my judgment, he cannot now predicate a claim of discrimi-
nation on the grounds that he did not receive the preferen-
tial treatment which he thought he would receive.
As to events after November 1 when Ackerman signed
an out-of-work list, there is no evidence that Respondent
failed to refer Ackerman in accordance with his standing
on the list. The evidence that referrals were being made to
Ebasco only proves that work was available, not that Ack-
erman was discriminated against. In this connection, it
should be noted that there is no showing here that there
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
existed a shortage of fitters as was true of welders and that
referrals were being made of fitters who had not registered
on the out-of-work list. Accordingly, without evidence to
the contrary, I must assume the referrals of fitters to Ebas-
co were made from the out-of-work lists.
In short, I conclude that General Counsel has failed to
establish by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent
discriminated against Ackerman in the making of referrals.
In reaching this conclusion I have carefully considered
Ackerman's testimony about his various conversations
with Stevens and remarks of Cook. Such testimony was in
my judgment colored and filled with innuendoes. For ex-
ample, he claimed that he signed an out-of-work list on
November 1, because Stevens told him to and also told
Cook to let him do so. I really don't know what that
proves. He claimed he signed an out-of-work list a second
time, and his testimony is not contradicted, and again I
don't know what that proves. He was critical of his referral
to what he called a "boilermaker" job, and implied he was
singled out for this referral. There is no evidence to support
his implication. In short, Ackerman's testimony implied
much, but General Counsel failed to buttress it by such
probative evidence as the out-of-work lists which could be
analyzed to determine whether or not Respondent was giv-
ing preference to its members. Absent such evidence, I find
Ackerman's testimony unpersuasive and I shall recom-
mend dismissal of the allegation of discrimination against
him.
There remains for consideration Ackerman's testimony
that Stevens told him he could make it a little rough on him
if he tried to get the International to shove him down his
throat. Stevens did not deny making this statement and I
credit Ackerman. While Stevens did not indicate how he
would make it rough on Ackerman, the clear meaning is
that he could cause him to lose employment. While Stevens
was not obligated to accept Ackerman into membership
under the provisions of the Act, he could not threaten to
affect his employment opportunities for seeking member-
ship. Accordingly, I find his remark to have been an un-
lawful threat constituting restraint and coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The conduct of Respondent described above, occurring
in connection with the operations of Ebasco Services, In-
corporated, as described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
W. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices prescribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and that it take certain affirmative action designed to
remedy its unfair labor practices and to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
As Respondent has been found to have caused Ebasco
Services, Incorporated, and the employees in contractual
relation with it and with whom it maintains and operates
an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice, to discrimi-
nate against Daniel E. Jurmanovich by refusing to permit
him to sign an out-of-work list, I shall recommend that
Respondent be ordered to make him whole for any loss of
earnings that he may have suffered by reason of such fail-
ure, such loss to be computed in accordance with the for-
mula in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ebasco Services, Incorporated, is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 630, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In-
dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By causing and attempting to cause Ebasco Services,
Incorporated and the employers in contractual relation
with it and with whom it maintains and operates an exclu-
sive hiring arrangement or practice to discriminate against
Daniel E. Jurmanovich because of his lack of membership
in Respondent, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
4. By conditioning the referral of Daniel E. Jurmano-
vich to employment upon his agreement to quit such em-
ployment, upon request, in order to provide employment to
a member of Respondent, Respondent attempted to cause
and is attempting to cause Ebasco Services, Incorporated
to discriminate against Daniel E. Jurmanovich because of
his lack of membership in Respondent and thereby en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
5. By threatening to make it rough on applicants for
employment because they seek to become members of Re-
spondent, Respondent restrained and coerced and is re-
straining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a pre-
ponderance of evidence that Respondent caused or at-
tempted to cause employers in contractual relation with it
and with whom it maintains and operates an exclusive hir-
ing practice or arrangement to discriminate against John
Ackerman and Fred Gene Raby in violation of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER4
LOCAL UN. NO . 630, PLUMBERS 529
Respondent , Local Union No. 630, United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-
fitting Industry of United States and Canada , AFL-CIO,
its officers , agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Ebasco Services, In-
corporated, and employers in contractual relation with it,
with whom it maintains and operates an exclusive hiring
arrangement or practice, to discriminate against applicants
for referral by refusing to permit nonmembers to sign an
out-of-work list and by conditioning referral on agreement
to quit their employment, upon request, to provide a job
for members of Respondent.
(b) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by threatening to
make it rough on individuals seeking referrals to employ-
ment because of their efforts to obtain membership in Re-
spondent.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action found necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Daniel E. Jurmanovich whole for any loss of
pay suffered by reason of the discrimination practices
against him in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its authorized agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all records , reports, work lists, referral documents, and
any other records and documents as may be in its posses-
sion, custody or control , which are necessary , useful or ap-
propriate in determining compliance with this recommend-
ed Order , or in computing the amount of backpay due
under its terms.
(c) Post at its offices , meeting hall, hiring hall, and all
other places where notices to members and applicants for
referral are customarily posted , copies of the attached no-
tice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for Region 12, shall, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of Re-
spondent , be posted by Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt ' thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to job applicants are customarily posted. If
Respondent does not have a place for posting a notice
which may readily be seen by applicants for employment,
it shall establish one 6 Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the aforesaid no-
tice to the Regional Director for Region 12 for posting by
Ebasco Services , Incorporated, and by the employers in
contractual relation with Respondent and with whom Re-
spondent maintains an exclusive hiring arrangement or
practice, said employers being willing, in places where they
customarily post notices to their employees.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of the
complaint found not to have been sustained by a prepon-
derance of the evidence be dismissed.
4 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, conclusons , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
5In 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
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board"
6 The unfair labor practices found herein have been directed against non-
members who are applicants for employment In this circumstance, a notice
headed "Notice to Members" would be inappropriate and ineffective. Ac-
cordingly , I have adopted a notice heading appropriate to the case.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to permit applicants for referral
to employment to register on the out-of-work list
which we maintain in making referrals to employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT condition the making of referrals to
employment upon agreement by applicants for refer-
ral to quit their employment, upon request, to provide
a job for members of Local 630.
WE WILL NOT threaten to make it rough on appli-
cants for referral because they seek to obtain member-
ship in Local 630.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Ebasco Serv-
ices, Incorporated, or any other employers with whom
we maintain and operate an exclusive hiring arrange-
ment or practice, to discriminate against applicants for
employment because they are not members of Local
630.
WE WILL make Daniel E. Jurmanovich whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered because we re-
fused to permit him to sign an out-of-work list.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
LOCAL UNION No. 630, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL-CIO