Local Union 530, Laborers'

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 162 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 530 , Laborers' International Union
of North America , AFL-CIO ( Cape Construction
Company , Inc.) and Gordon Shope. Case
9-CB-1571
August 21, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On April 22, 1969, Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine 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.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
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 proceeding 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 proceeding, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, as herein modified.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Local Union No. 530, Laborers ' International
Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Zanesville,
Ohio, its officers , agents, and representatives shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order , as so modified:
Substitute for paragraph l of the Trial
Examiner ' s Recommended Order the following:
"Cease and desist from causing or attempting to
cause Cape Construction Company , Inc., to
discharge or otherwise discriminate against
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Trial Examiner: This is an
unfair labor practice case brought against Local Union
No. 530, as Respondent, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. 29
U.S.C. 160(b). It was commenced by a complaint issued
on January 21, 1969, by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio). That
complaint is based on a charge filed on November 27,
1968, by Gordon Shope, the Charging Party.
In essence the complaint alleges that Respondent has
committed unfair labor practices prohibited by Section
8(b)(2), and that such activity affects commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act. Respondent
has answered admitting some facts set forth in the
complaint but denying that it committed any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to due notice this case came on to be heard,
and was tried before me, on March 6, 1969, at Zanesville,
Ohio. All parties were represented at and participated in
the trial, and were granted full opportunity to adduce
evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, submit
briefs, and argue orally. Briefs have been received from
the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. AS TO JURISDICTION
Cape Construction Company, Inc., herein called the
Employer, a Wyoming corporation, is engaged in the
business of constructing cross-country pipelines. Although
its principal place of business is located in Cape
Girardeau, Missouri, it constructs pipelines at various
locations throughout the United States. During the year
preceding January 21, 1969, when the complaint issued,
the Employer performed work valued in excess of $50,000
in more than one State. I find that the Employer is an
employer as defined in Section 2(2), and is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7), of
the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 530, Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 530, is a
labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues in this case are:
1. Whether the Employer became a party to a contract
with Respondent whereby the Employer was required to
hire employees through referrals by Respondent.
2. Whether Respondent caused or attempted to cause
the Employer to discharge employee Gordon Shope
because of his lack of membership in Respondent during
the 7-day period when Shope, under Sections 8(a)(3) and
8(f) of the Act, was free not to belong to a labor
organization.
In 1968 the Employer obtained a contract to construct
a 26-inch cross-country pipeline from near Columbus,
Ohio, for a distance of about 250 miles. On May 1, 1968,'
a prejob conference was held at the Holiday Inn East in,
Columbus, Ohio. Representatives of several unions
attended this conference, including one or more persons
from the Laborers' International, Local 530, Local 809,
Local 423, Local 521, Local 534, Local 704, Local 523,
'All dates mentioned hereafter refer to 1968 except where otherwise
noted.
178 NLRB No.23
LOCAL UNION 530, LABORERS' 163
and Local 123, all being Ohio locals. Also attending were
representatives of the Employer and of J. L. Cox & Sons,
Inc., another contractor engaged to work on the same
project.
At this conference the parties discussed several matters
relating to the job and also the question of
collective -bargaining agreements . It developed at this
discussion that the Employer was signatory to "the
mainline pipeline agreement ." This is a
collective -bargaining agreement between Mainline Pipeline
Contractors and Laborers' International Union of North
America. See Respondent ' s Exhibit 1. The parties
thereupon agreed that the terms of said mainline pipeline
agreement "would be enforced on this particular job,"
that it "would control the assignment of laborers on this
particular project in all cases," and that the project would
be governed by the terms of said agreement.
Among other things, said collective-bargaining
agreement contains the following pertinent provisions:
(a) In article II(A) the signatory employers recognize
said Laborers ' International as the exclusive representative
of all employees of the contractors engaged in
constructing " transportation mainline pipeline and
underground cable work coming within the jurisdiction of
[said] Union" for the purpose of collective bargaining.
(b) By article II(E) all employees other than "key men"
shall be hired in the following manner:
Where the International Union notifies [the contractor]
that in a given area, an exclusive referral system exists,
the Employer agrees to use that exclusive referral
procedure as the initial source for securing qualified
applicants , except key men. Qualified applicants
required by Employer at the start of the job must be
referred by a Local within 48 hours of the receipt of the
Employer's request; those required by Employer after a
job has started must be referred by a local referral
office within 24 hours of the receipt of Employer's
request . If the local referral office fails to comply with
this condition , Employer may secure qualified
applicants from any other source, in which event the
Employer shall immediately furnish to the Union a list
of the names, addresses , and social security numbers of
the men so employed
(c) Article II(F) provides for a nondiscriminatory
application of any "exclusive referral system " utilized
pursuant to the contract.
A "key man" is a " specialized person who has a
specialized training in his particular type of work,"
according to Drexel J. Thrash, Special International
Representative of Laborers' International.
Further, it was agreed at this conference that the union
steward would be a working steward , that such steward
would check laborers on the job to be sure that they were
affiliated with a local of Laborers ' International , and that
he would attempt to adjust any grievances of laborers on
the job . Cape Construction was also told at the same time
to contact Local 530 if a "problem" arose on the job, and
that the man with whom Cape should communicate was
Bohdan Bednarczuk, the business manager of Local 530.
Bednarczuk told Union Steward Bickford to police the
foregoing collective-bargaining agreement. And
Bednarczuk ' s predecessor in office, Rittenour , instructed
Bickford " to make sure that the union and the contractor
would hire through the union ." However, I find that
Bickford at no time informed Bednarczuk that Shope was
working on the job without being referred by the union
hall of Local 530.
At the above prejob conference Cape Construction
Company and the Unions present agreed that since Local
530 had been selected to "police this entire project" and
had a hiring hall, contractors needing laborers would
obtain them by contacting Bohdan Bednarczuk, the
business manager of Local 530, and advising him of the
number of employees required . In those instances where
the pipeline traversed the area where other unions had
geographical jurisdiction , Bednarczuk would contact the
union involved and obtain from it the number of laborers
requisitioned by the contractor.
Finally, at this conference Local 530 told Cape
Construction Company that the former would designate
one of the laborers on the project as job steward to
represent that Union on the job. Among other things it
would be the job steward 's responsibility to obtain the
name, address , and social security number of each laborer
on the project and, after the eighth day, to request
nonmembers to join the Union. Article II(B) of the
contract in evidence as Respondent 's Exhibit 1 provides
that employees covered by it shall become and remain
members after the eighth day following their hire or the
effective date of the agreement , whichever is later.
In late June or early July, Shope' s son- in-law, Samuel
Rexroad, a member of Local 83 of the Laborers, was
hired as a laborer by Foreman Hogue "off the bank," i.e.,
without being referred to the Employer by Local 530.
About 2 weeks before this Rexroad asked Union Steward
Bickford about obtaining a job on the project. Bickford
replied that he was supposed to get his hands from the
union hall but he was having trouble getting hands to
come to the project. Shortly after Rexroad was hired
Bickford asked Rexroad if the latter had a union book
and, upon receiving an affirmative reply, briefly examined
it.
Not long before August 9 Rexroad learned that a
laborer named Mike on the tie-in crew was resigning to
resume his high school education . This caused Rexroad on
August 11 to ask Foreman Hogue whether Hogue had
obtained a replacement for Mike. When Hogue replied in
the negative , Rexroad suggested that Hogue consider
hiring Shope. Rexroad did not suggest to Shope that the
latter obtain a referral from the hiring hall of Local 530
simply because the Company had been "hiring off the
bank right along ." After brief discussion Hogue told
Rexroad to have Shope at the jobsite the next morning,
August 12, and that Shope would then be "signed up."
Rexroad then brought Shope to Hogue on the morning of
August 12 and Shope was then hired by Hogue.
Not long after August 12 Rexroad asked Union
Steward Bickford why Bickford refused to " sign up
[Shope] for the union ." Bickford replied that he could not
do this inasmuch as Bickford had men loafing in the
union hall and that he, Bickford, had to get such men out
to the job first.
Later that week Rexroad overheard Foreman Hogue
tell Shope that Hogue had to let Shope go ; that Hogue
hated to do this because Shope was a good worker; and
that Hogue had no choice but to "put a man on from a
union hall."
A few days following Shope' s discharge , Rexroad asked
Union Steward Bickford if Bickford had notified the
Company that Bickford was unable to supply laborers
about the time that Shope was hired. Bickford replied that
he did not have to notify the Company " ahead of time"
and that it made no difference now because "we have men
loafing and will just bring them in."
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cape Construction's tie-in foreman on the above
project was Louis R Hogue, who in August 1968, was
stationed at Columbus, Ohio The project involved laying
a 26-inch p'pe for about 250 miles As such foreman,
Hogue was invested with authority to hire and fire
employees on his crew About August 9, a Friday, Hogue
needed laborers because one or two of those working for
him had quit As a result Hogue asked Bickford, the job
steward of Local 530 on the project, for one or two
laborers Yet none showed up on the following Monday,
August 12 Consequently Hogue hired Gordon Shope as a
laborer on the tie-in crew on August 12 However, Hogue
knew shortly before August 12 that Bickford was not
supplying him with laborers and thus agreed with Shope's
sornm-law on August I 1 to hire Shope, as narrated below
Shope showed up at the project on Monday, August 12,
seeking employment as a laborer because Samuel
Rexroad, his son in-law, an employee of Cape
Construction Company, and a member of another
Laborers local, had told him that Hogue was hiring
laborers Rexroad had obtained this information from
Hogue who had answered affirmatively Rexroad's
question as to whether Hogue needed laborers
About August 14 Job Steward Bickford of Local 530
happened to be near Shope on the project Shope
approached him and sought to buy a union "book" from
Bickford because Shope was working on the project
Replying that Shope had not been hired through the
Union, that Cape Construction Company had not notified
Bickford that it was going to hire "in that manner," and
that Bickford had men in the Union with books, Bickford
refused to sell a book to Shope Another laborer present,
Woodman then sought to persuade Bickford to sell a
"book" to Shope, but Bickford refused because Shope had
not been hired 'by the union" Then Bickford said to
Shope that Shope could work the next day, Thursday,
"and that will be it " Bickford's account of this occasion
is substantially different, but I do not credit him on this
aspect of the case However, Bickford admits that
Woodman asked him why Shope could not buy a book
Bickford also testified that he spoke to Shope a few
moments before the above conversation I do not credit
Bickford on this, not only because of his demeanor but
also because he could not recall any of the contents of
another conversation he claims he had with Shope the
next day (See tr p 64 )
On Wednesday, August 14, Union Steward Charles
Bickford informed Foreman Hogue that Shope did not
have a union card and, therefore, Shope would have to be
replaced And on August 15 Bickford proffered employee
Richard Roan, a member of the Employer's fence crew
on the project, and who had a union card, to take Shope's
place I do not credit Bickford's testimony to the extent
that it varies with the findings in this paragraph
Shope worked on Thursday, August 15 However, when
he reported to work on Friday, August 16, Shope found
that he had been replaced by another man At about the
same time Foreman Hogue told Shope that he, Hogue,
had to let Shope go "due to the union," but hated to do
so, and that Shope would be replaced by a man from the
fence crew Hogue explained that he took this action
because Union Steward Charles Bickford had mentioned
that Shope did not have a union card, and Hogue also
told Shope to "get straight" with Bickford (Hogue also
testified that he thought Shope thereafter was transferred
to the Employer's "dope gang," but I find that he was not
so transferred ) However, since Shope had already
appeared on the job Hoeue permitted Shope to work there
for the remainder of the day Shope finishea the day
working on the project, but he never reported back to said
job Hogue then reported his actions to his superintendent,
telling the latter that Bickford insisted on laying off or
replacing Shope because Shope had no union card
On prior occasions Hogue was compelled to hire
laborers for this project from the street or "off the bank,"
i e , they were not referred to him b5 Local 530, because
Local 530 had not honored his requests to have laborers
sent to him when he needed them Such requests were
transmitted through Union Steward Charles Bickford
Respondent's contrary evidence is not credited
In addition to settling grievances, Union Job Steward
Bickford checked the laborers on the crews to ascertain
whether they belonged to the Union He also asked Hogue
for a list of names of those laborers working on such
crews In fact, Hogue always dealt with Bickford as the
representative of the Union, and neither knew nor dealt
with Business Manager Bednarczuk on any matters Thus
Hogue always asked Job Steward Bickford for men
whenever Hogue needed laborers on the project However,
on one or two occasions when Bickford did not come to
work, Hogue asked his superior, the superintendent, to
call the union hall for laborers needed on Hogue's crew
Concluding Findings and Discussion
The first question is whether a contract existed between
Cape Construction Company and Local 530 1 find that
the parties orally agreed to be bound by the mainline
pipeline contract between Laborers' International Union
and the Pipe Line Contractors Association (Resp Exh 1),
and that such oral agreement is legally effective to make
such document operative as a collective-bargaining
contract between Cape Construction Company and Local
530 And I further find that said collective-bargaining
agreement contains a valid clause requiring the Employer
to obtain laborers exclusively from the referral office of
Local 530 unless said Local 530 fails to supply them
within 24 hours of the Employer's request therefor See
Article II(E)
A contract providing that an employer party thereto
must obtain his employees exclusively by referral from the
union party thereto, and that such employer may not hire
from other sources until the union fails to refer employees
within a reasonable time, has been upheld by the Supreme
Court Citation of authority would be supererogatory
Such contract is valid on its face if it obligates the union
to administer said referral system in a nondiscriminatory
manner without regard to an applicant's membership or
nonmembership in the union Local 357 v N L R B 365
U S 667 I find that the contract involved in this
proceeding contains such safeguards and, therefore, the
text thereof (See Article II(F)) complies with legal
requirements See Shears Pharmacy Inc 137 NLRB
451, 453
Further, I find that the collective-bargaining contract
between Cape Construction Company and Local 530
(Resp's Exh 1) does not offend the Act notwithstanding
that said contract (1) compels employees to acquire and
maintain membership in the Union "commencing on the
8th day following the beginning of such employment or
the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later"
(art II(B)), and (2) no evidence was introduced at the
hearing that the Union enjoyed majority status when the
contract became effective This is because I find that Cape
Construction Company is an employer engaged primarily
LOCAL UNION 530, LABORERS' 165
in the building and construction industry, that the laborers
it hired were engaged in the building and construction
industry, that the agreement covered such laborers, and
that Local 530 is a labor organization of which building
and construction employees are members. In this
connection I find that the laying of pipe on the project
involved constitutes work embraced by the designation
"building and construction."
Hence I find that the majority status of Local 530 need
not be established affirmatively prior to the making of
said agreement. See Section 8(f)(l) of the Act. It follows,
and I find, that such agreement may require union
membership as a condition of employment after the
seventh day following the beginning of such employment
or the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later.
See Section 8(f)(2) of the Act.
Since the contract is valid on its face, the Employer
was required to obtain its laborers by referral from Local
530 unless the Union failed to supply them within 24
hours of any request for such by the Employer; and Local
530 could lawfully demand dismissal of employees not so
referred N L R.B v. Operating Engineers, 323 F.2d 545
(C.A. 9). However, I find that Local 530 did not by
August 12 honor Foreman Hogue's request of August 9
for a laborer; and I further find that Hogue was justified,
and did not breach the contract, in hiring Shope on
August 12 by reason of the failure of Local 530 to refer a
laborer to the Employer within 24 hours after Hogue's
request. Hence I find that Local 530 could not lawfully
demand the dismissal of Shope on the ground he was not
referred to the Employer by Local 530. And Hogue was
justified in making his requests to Steward Bickford
because of past practices. The question now is whether
Local 530 caused or attempted to cause the Employer to
discharge Shope in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
It is my opinion, and I find, that Local 530 attempted
to cause, and did cause, Cape Construction Company to
discharge Shope contrary to the prohibitions of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, that thereby Cape Construction
Company unlawfully discriminated against Shope, and
that such conduct by Local 530 is forbidden by Section
8(b)(2) of the Act. Cf. Local 120, Laborers, 174 NLRB
No 150, fn. 1. This ultimate finding is based on the entire
record and the findings, which follow, to the effect that
Union Steward Bickford attempted to cause, and did
cause, Hogue to discharge Shope, and that Local 530 may
be held responsible for Bickford's foregoing conduct.
In the first place I credit the General Counsel's
testimony that (1) on August 14 Bickford told Shope that
Shope was not hired through the Union, and that Shope
therefore could work only the next day and "that will be
it," and (2) on the same day Bickford told Foreman
Hogue that Shope did not have a union card and Shope
would have to be replaced, and also tendered employee
Roan to replace Shope. Cf. Local No. 444, Iron Workers,
174 NLRB No. 164, 1 do not credit Bickford's testimony
inconsistent with these findings.
Secondly, I find that Bickford's duties as union steward
were such that it was within the apparent, if not actual,
scope of his authority as such to demand the discharge of
laborers who neither were referred by the Union nor were
union members. This finding emerges from the fact, which
I find, that Bickford was empowered by Local 530 to
police the collective-bargaining agreement on such matters
as ascertaining whether laborers on the job belonged to
the Union, and also to process grievances for laborers
claiming to be aggrieved on the project.
No contrary finding is dictated by the fact, which I
find, that Bickford was a working steward. For it is not
the nature of his work for the Employer which determines
whether the Union is responsible for his actions in
policing the contract. Rather, the test is whether he was
invested with actual or apparent authority to act on behalf
of the Union concerning matters arising under the
contract.
Nor is a different result required because Union
Official Bednarczuk never was informed of Shope's hiring
or discharge. This is because I have found that it was
within Bickford's sphere to police the contract and that as
part of such authority he was empowered to demand that
the Employer discharge persons whomBickford believed-
whether rightly or wrongly-to have been improperly
hired. Hence Bednarczuk's lack of knowledge is not fatal
to the General Counsel's case.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As Respondent has been found to have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take specific
affirmative action, as set forth below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act
It will be further recommended that Local 530
withdraw opposition to the immediate and full
reinstatement by the Employer of Gordon Shope to his
former position or one substantially equivalent thereto,
and that Local 530 make Shope whole for any loss of
earnings suffered by his discriminatory discharge by
paying to him a sum of money for such loss. Said sum
shall be equal to such earnings as he would have earned as
wages from the date of his discharge by Cape
Construction Company to the date Respondent notifies
the Employer that it has no objection to the employment
of Shope, less his net earnings during such period Any
backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum
pursuant to the formula adopted in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Respondent's conduct does not demonstrate general
hostility to the Act. Accordingly, I find that a narrow
order is warranted limited to enjoining Local 530 from
repeating the activities found herein to contravene the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 530 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Sections 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act.
2. Cape Construction Company is an employer engaged
in commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing the Employer,
Cape Construction Company, to discriminate against
Gordon Shope, an employee thereof, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Local 530 has engaged in
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act.
4. The above-described unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this-case, I
recommend that the Board issue an Order directing that
Local 530 and its officers, agents, representatives,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause
Cape Construction Company, Inc., to discharge or
otherwise discriminate against Gordon Shope because of
nonmembership in a labor organization or because he has
not been referred by Local 530, or to discriminate against
any other employee of Cape because of nonmembership in
a labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Cape Construction Company, Inc., in
writing, and furnish Shope with a copy thereof, that it has
no objection to the employment of Gordon Shope and to
his immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position.
(b) Make whole Gordon Shope for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him, in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled
"The Remedy." (Since the record discloses that Gordon
Shope is a father-in-law, he is of an age warranting that
the usual provision about notifying a person in the Armed
Forces about reinstatement will be omitted.)
(c) Post at the business offices and meeting halls of
Local 530 copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and shall be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
'If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended
Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice if the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the notice shall be
further amended by substituting the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and
Order."
' if this Recommended Order is 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 "
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by such Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
Dated By
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION No. 530,
LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Cape
Construction Company, Inc., to discharge or otherwise
discriminate against Gordon Shope because of
nonmembership in a labor organization or because he
has not been referred by us, or to discriminate against
any other employee of Cape because of nonmembership
in a labor organization.
WE WILL notify, in writing, Cape Construction
Company, Inc., that we have no objection to the
employment of Gordon Shope and to his immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position.
WE WILL make Gordon Shope whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of any
discriminatory action by us against him.
LOCAL UNION No. 530,
LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
APPENDIX
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 2407
Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3663.