Local Union No. 703, Laborers'

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 877 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

LOCAL UNION NO. 703, LABORERS' 877
Local Union No. 703, Laborers ' International Union
of North America , AFL-CIO ( McCarthy Brothers
Construction Company ) and Kenneth D. Martin.
Case 38-CB-204
April 1, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On January 14, 1970, Trial Examiner Benjamin
K. Blackburn issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in 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 and General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, with
briefs 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 case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and adopts the Trial
Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations with the following addition.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
Johnson's requests for Martin's discharge on July 2
and July 9 were precipitated by Martin's efforts to
become a two-card man and Johnson's consequent
fear that Martin would replace Rodrig as McCarthy
Brothers' two-card employee, not by Martin's dues
delinquency. The Complaint specifically alleged that
Johnson's July 9 requests were additionally
motivated by Martin's filing of the instant unfair
labor practice charge, an issue the Trial Examiner
found unnecessary to decide. This allegation in the
complaint was fully litigated and the Trial Examiner
made certain fact findings in regard to it to which
Respondent took no exception. We find merit in the
General Counsel's exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's failure to rule on this allegation
The record indicates that Martin filed the unfair
labor practice on July 8 and Respondent was served
with a copy of the charge in the early morning of
July 9. Johnson knew of the charge when later that
same day he went to the McCarthy jobsite where
The Trial Examiner inadvertently named Johnson, rather than
Faulkner, as the individual who sought out Martin in early August and
stated that Respondent would not accept Martin's tender of dues and fees
until the unfair labor practice charge was resolved This is corrected to
conform with the transcript
Martin was working, engaged in an argument
concerning the two-card man practice, asserted he
was going to take Martin off the job if he had to
take all the laborers with him, declared that he did
not like Martin running to the NLRB and reiterated
his demand that Martin be discharged. The record
further indicates that Respondent, in early August,
announced to Martin that it would not accept a
tender of his dues and fees until the unfair labor
practice charge was resolved. In our opinion, these
facts clearly establish that Respondent's July 9
requests for Martin's discharge were motivated at
least in part by Martin having filed the unfair labor
practice charge on July 8. Accordingly, we find that
Respondent has coerced, and attempted to cause an
employer to discriminate against, Martin because he
resorted to Board processes' and has thereby
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
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, and
hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union No.
703, Laborers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, Champaign, Illinois, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order as so modified-
1. Substitute the following as paragraph (a):
"(a) Causing or attempting to cause McCarthy
Brothers Construction Company, its officers, agents,
successors, or assigns, or any other employer, to
discharge Kenneth D. Martin, or otherwise to
discriminate against him in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act because he attempted to acquire
membership in another labor organization or
because he filed an unfair labor practice charge with
the National Labor Relations Board."
2. In the Appendix to the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, substitute the following as the
first indented paragraph:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause
McCarthy Brothers Construction Company, its
officers, agents, successors, or assigns, or. any
other employer, to discharge Kenneth D. Martin
or to otherwise discriminate against him in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act because he
attempted to acquire membership in another labor
organization or because he filed an unfair labor
practice charge with the National Labor Relations
Board.
'Hod Carriers ', Building & General Laborers ' Union of America, Local
No 652, AFL-CIO (Earl C Worley). 147 NLRB 380, 390, enfd 351 F 2d
151 (C A 9)
181 NLRB No. 140
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN, Trial Examiner: Kenneth D.
Martin filed an unfair labor practice charge against Local
Union No 703, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as Respondent, on
July 8, 1969.' The General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion
38 (Peoria, Illinois ), issued complaint on August 7. It
alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and
(2) of the Act by causing or attempting to cause
McCarthy Brothers Construction Company, referred to
herein as McCarthy Brothers, to discharge or lay off
Martin for discriminatory reasons. Respondent's answer,
duly filed, admitted certain allegations of the complaint
and denied others, including the allegation that it had
committed unfair labor practices Consequently, the issue
litigated at the hearing before me, held pursuant to due
notice on September 25 in Champaign, Illinois, was
whether Respondent's motive for demanding that
McCarthy Brothers discharge Martin was Martin's failure
to pay his dues, a condition of employment specified in a
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and
McCarthy Brothers.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full
opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and
to file briefs. Upon the entire record, including oral
argument at the hearing as well as briefs subsequently
filed by Respondent and the General Counsel, and from
my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying under oath, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF MCCARTHY BROTHERS
McCarthy Brothers, a Missouri corporation with its
office and principal place of business in St. Louis, is
engaged in building construction. During a 12-month
period just prior to issuance of the complaint herein, it
was engaged as a general contractor in the construction of
various buildings in Champaign, Illinois. It purchased and
received, in that period, materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which were shipped directly to those jobsites from
points outside the State of Illinois. On the basis of these
facts, admitted by Respondent, I find that McCarthy
Brothers is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
HE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Facts
McCarthy Brothers is the general contractor for several
new buildings under construction on the University of
Illinois campus in Champaign One is the Civil
Engineering Building In June and July McCarthy
Brothers employed some five or six laborers on that job,
pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement with
Respondent. Among them was Martin. McCarthy
Brothers' general superintendent on the Civil Engineering
job at that time was Earl (Nelson) Snellings; its foreman
over the laborers it employed, Charles (Bob) Daugherty
Respondent's contract with McCarthy Brothers
contains a valid union-security clause ' It also contains an
exclusive hiring hall provision under which Martin and the
other laborers were hired by McCarthy Brothers It
provides that an employer who wants to hire a former
employee may request him from Respondent. If he is on
the out-of-work list, and thus available, Respondent
dispatches him to the job even though he is not at the top
of the list In the event an employer calls Respondent for
men without specifying any individual, Respondent
dispatches men from the top of the list When a laborer
registers for work with Respondent he is placed at the
bottom of the out-of-work list and works his way to the
top as those above him are dispatched to jobs
Martin, a full-fledged member of Respondent at the
beginning of this saga, last paid his dues in February for
the month of January. A member who is more than 60
days in arrears in his dues is considered delinquent When
he is more than 90 days in arrears Respondent reports
him as "suspended" to its International, and ceases to
forward to the International his monthly per capita
assessment. Ultimately, a delinquent member is dropped
from the rolls By July 2 Martin was more than 150 days
(5 months) in arrears' A member who loses his good
standing in Respondent because he fails to pay his dues
can be reinstated by paying a fee as set by a sliding scale.
If he is less than 3 months in arrears, reinstatement costs
him $10, plus the current month's dues. If he is more than
3 months but less than 6 months in arrears, reinstatement
costs him one-third of Respondent's standard initiation
fee, plus the current month's dues. If he is more than 6
months in arrears, reinstatement costs him two-thirds of
the initiation fee, plus the current month's dues
Respondent requests employers, pursuant to the
union-security clause in its contract, to discharge
employees who fall behind in their dues There is no hard
and fast rule as to how far behind Respondent will permit
a member to fall before taking this step. The request is
made when Eugene Johnson, Respondent's business agent,
catches up with the delinquent. The shortest delinquency
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find
that Respondent , as well as Chauffeurs , Teamsters and
Helpers Local 26, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, referred to herein as Local 26, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
'All dates are 1969
'The clause states
All present employees who are not members of the Union shall, after
the seventh day following the date of the execution of this agreement, be
required to become and remain members in good standing of
[Respondent ] as a condition of their employment
All employees who are hired hereafter shall be required to become and
remain members in good standing of [Respondent] as a condition of
their continued employment after the seventh day of their employment
or the effective date of this agreement, whichever is later
'The record does not reveal whether Martin, in fact, had been reported
to the International as a suspended member or dropped from the rolls at
the time of the incidents involved in this case Respondent 's so-called "per
capita sheets" were not produced at the hearing Martin had been dropped
by Respondent by the time of the hearing
LOCAL UNION NO 703, LABORERS'
which has caused Johnson to take action is 3 months
However, there have been occasions where members have
fallen as much as 9 months behind before Johnson has
demanded their discharge A delinquent member who
wants to be reinstated normally need only make the
necessary payment to Harold Burton, Respondent's
secretary-treasurer However, if he has been discharged as
a result of a request from Respondent, it is Respondent's
practice that he must straighten the matter out by first
seeing Johnson personally before Respondent will accept
his reinstatement fee and dues
Respondent has approximately 850 members Local 26,
the Teamsters local in the Champaign area, has more
than 2,000 There is a practice in the Champaign area
which has developed as an accomodation for contractors
Frequently contractors who employ laborers use a vehicle
on their projects for only an hour or so a day Respondent
and Local 26 permit contractors in that situation to use a
laborer to drive the vehicle rather than require him to hire
an additional employee, a Teamster, who would spend
most of the day doing nothing. Approximately 13
members of Respondent carry a card in Local 26 for this
purpose They are referred to as 2-card men Each
contractor is permitted to utilize the services in this
manner of only a single 2-card man at any one time In
June and July Virgil Rodrig had been McCarthy Brothers'
2-card man for some 6 years He was working on a
project other than the Civil Engineering Building.
One morning in June on another McCarthy Brothers
project on the Illinois campus, Foreman Charles
Daugherty punched a laborer in the nose In the ensuing
court case Rodrig testified against Daugherty. In late June
Daugherty advised Martin to apply for membership in
Local 26 On June 30 Martin did so. Johnson learned of
Martin's application Rodrig told Johnson that Daugherty
was going to get rid of him. Johnson concluded that
Daugherty had determined to replace Rodrig as McCarthy
Brothers' 2-card man with Martin He went to the Civil
Engineering Building jobsite on the morning of
Wednesday, July 2, to demand the discharge of Martin
under the union-security provision of the contract
Johnson was accompained that morning by his
assistant , Jimmie Lee Falkner. He spoke to Daugherty
They discussed Martin and his effort to become a 2-card
man An argument resulted. Johnson told Daugherty that
he would not permit Martin to work as a 2-card man on
the job He said that he would make Daugherty put a
Teamster on the job, with the consequent inconvenience
for McCarthy Brothers, before he would let Martin be a
2-card man He said that he would shut the job down
rather than permit Martin to be McCarthy Brothers'
2-card man At the end of the argument, Johnson told
Daugherty to lay Martin off because he was behind in his
dues. Johnson and Falkner left with the understanding
that Martin would be laid off forthwith pursuant to the
contract
Daugherty did not lay off Martin. Instead, he told him
to go to Respondent's hall and straighten out his dues.
Martin went around noon on July 2 and found no one
there He returned to work. He went back to the hall at
7 30 the next morning and spoke to Falkner Falkner
'My finding as to what Johnson said on this occasion is based on the
credited testimony of Daugherty Johnson and Falkner both testified at the
hearing Neither was questioned about this conversation Martin testified
that the only part of the conversation he overheard was Johnson's
statement that "they wasn ' t going to let me drive the truck and work as a
laborer, too "
879
calculated reinstatement fee and dues owed by Martin
under Respondent's rules at $76 30 Falkner filled in
Martin's blank check, except for the signature Martin
signed the check and gave it to Falkner ` Falkner told
Martin he would have to speak to Johnson personally
before he could be reinstated
Martin went from the hall to the project He told
Daugherty that he had given a check to Respondent to
straighten out his dues delinquency but had not received a
receipt Daugherty sent him back to the hall to get a
receipt Martin returned to the hall and talked to Burton
Falkner was not present While Martin was talking to
Burton, Burton received a phone call from Falkner.
Burton explained to Falkner that Martin wanted a receipt
for the money he had given Falkner that morning
Falkner asked to speak to Martin Falkner told Martin
that he had since talked to Johnson and that Johnson had
told him to return the check, it would not be accepted
until Martin saw Johnson about the matter Martin left
the hall without a receipt Since he had nothing to show
Daugherty that he had straightened out his dues
delinquency, he did not return to the project that day The
project was closed down on July 4, 5, and 6
On Monday morning, July 7, Martin went back to the
hall and spoke again to Falkner. Falkner returned his
check Martin did not attempt to work that day Instead
he went to Springfield, Illinois, where he saw an
International representative of the Laborers Union named
Freitag Martin told Freitag what had happened Freitag
told Martin he would call Respondent and tell it to
reinstate Martin Martin went from Springfield back to
Respondent's hall, where he saw Johnson. Johnson
indicated that he knew Martin had been to Springfield to
see Freitag He told Martin that he would not take his
money for reinstatement fee and dues while Martin
worked for McCarthy Brothers He told Martin to sign up
for work. Then, he said, Respondent would accept his
money and find him another job without delay Martin
did not offer the check to Johnson in this interview He
made no effort to talk to Johnson about the situation
thereafter, nor has he ever proffered any money to
Respondent.
The next day, July 8, Martin filed the charge in this
case. The day after that, Wednesday, July 9, Martin
returned to the project and was put to work by
Daugherty. Johnson and Falkner visited the project that
morning. Johnson, accompanied by Falkner and Joe
Dubson, Respondent's steward on the job, had an
argument with Snellings and Daugherty about the 2-card
man practice ° Johnson told Snellings that the practice
was strictly a local agreement and Respondent would
control which of the several jobs McCarthy Brothers was
then engaged on could have a 2-card man Johnson said
that he was going to take Martin off the job if he had to
take all the laborers with him, that he had never had any
trouble with Snellings before and did not want any, that
'The only part of this episode about which there is any dispute is how
long Respondent retained Martin's check Falkner said that he handed it
back to Martin immediately as he told Martin he would have to see
Johnson Martin testified that he did not get it back until July 7 1 credit
Martin, relying on the corroborating testimony of Jimmie Jones , another
laborer Jones testified that he saw Falkner hand the check to Martin on
the morning of July 7
'Johnson and Falkner were also not asked about the two conferences
which took place at the Jobsite on July 9 My findings are based on the
credited testimony of Snellings , Martin, and , principally , Timothy
McCarthy , an officer of McCarthy Brothers While not a participant,
Martin overheard part of the first conference
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he did not like Martin running to the National Labor
Relations Board, and that he would like to settle the
dispute locally if he could. Timothy McCarthy, one of the
brothers McCarthy, happened to be in Champaign that
day. Consequently, Johnson, Falkner, and Dobson met
with McCarthy and Snellings later that day. Johnson told
McCarthy all that had happened, including the fact that
he had invoked the contract a week before and that
McCarthy's underlings had failed to live up to it. Johnson
told McCarthy that he could take away McCarthy's
2-card man privilege if he wanted to Johnson also told
McCarthy that Daugherty was behind Martin's going to
the Labor Board McCarthy was concerned that turmoil
between Johnson and Daugherty was endangering the
peaceful progress of his projects in Champaign. He
instructed that Martin be discharged immediately under
the terms of the contract. Martin was
Martin' registered for work at Respondent's hall the
next morning. A few days later he was dispatched to a
job. A few days later he was discharged from that job,
apparently for dues delinquency at Respondent's request.
He registered again and, when he had again risen to the
top of the list, was dispatched to a job with a
subcontractor on the Civil Engineering Building. He was
still working on that job at the time of the hearing despite
his dues delinquency, Respondent having made no request
to the subcontractor to discharge him pursuant to the
contract One day in early August Johnson sought Martin
out on the job Johnson told Martin that Respondent
would not accept a reinstatement fee or dues from Martin
until this case settled
B. Analysis and Conclusions
I find that Johnson was motivated by Martin's effort to
become a 2-card man and Johnson's consequent fear that
Daugherty was engaged in a plot to replace Rodrig with
Martin as McCarthy Brothers' 2-card man in Champaign
and not by Martin's dues delinquency when, on July 2 and
thereafter, he demanded that McCarthy Brothers
terminate Martin's employment pursuant to the contract.'
In reaching this conclusion I rely especially on Johnson's
own testimony. At one point Johnson was asked why,
2-card men being a fact of life in his organization, he was
perturbed at Martin's seeking a card in Local 26. He
replied
There was a conversation that took place with Mr.
McCarthy - this was approximately two weeks before
-- that the two-card man they have now, Virgil Rodrig,
did render testimony in the local courts against Mr.
Daugherty, about him poking this laborer in the nose
Therefore, Mr. Daugherty decided he's not going to
have Virgil Rodrig on his job, and they were going to
dispense with his services and put Mr. Martin on there,
and we weren't about to hold still for that Because
personalities has nothing to do with employment.
A few seconds later Johnson testified that it was Martin's
prerogative to have 2 cards, if he could get them, "as long
as he doesn't try to replace anybody that has been
working for six years," i.e , Virgil Rodrig.
Since, therefore, Johnson did not request the discharge
of Martin solely because of his dues delinquency, I find
that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
'The complaint alleges and the General Counsel argues, alternatively,
that Respondent was also illegally motivated by Martin's resort to the
Board 's processes in filing the charge in this case Hod Carriers', Local
Ao 652 (Earl C Worley). 147 NLRB 380 1 do not reach this issue
Act when he did General Motors Corporation, Packard
Electric Division, 134 NLRB 1107; International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 17
(George Mower), 172 NLRB No. 227
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and on the entire
record in this case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. McCarthy Brothers Construction Company is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
2 Local Union No. 703, Laborers Internation, Union
of North America , AFL-CIO, and Chauffeurs , Teamsters
and Helpers Local 26, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause McCarthy Brothers
Construction Company to discharge Kenneth D Martin
on July 2, 1969, and by causing McCarthy Brothers
Construction Company to discharge Martin on July 9,
1969, for a reason other than Martin's failure to tender
the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as
a condition of acquiring or retaining membership,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(2) of the Act
4. By the aforesaid conduct, Respondent has restrained
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the
Act.
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act
I have found that Respondent caused the discriminatory
discharge of Kenneth D. Martin Therefore, I will
recommend that Respondent notify McCarthy Brothers in
writing that it has no objection to the employment of
Martin by that company as a laborer, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges I will further
recommend that Respondent make Martin whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him by paying to him a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from July 9, 1969, to the date on which
McCarthy Brothers receives Respondent's notification that
Respondent has no objection to Martin's employment, less
Martin's net earnings during such period, with backpay
and interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following:
LOCAL UNION NO. 703, LABORERS' 881
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Local Union No 703, Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Causing or attempting to cause McCarthy Brothers
Construction Company, its officers , agents, successors, or
assigns, or any other employer , to refuse to hire Kenneth
D Martin, to discharge him, to limit his job
opportunities , or otherwise to discriminate against him in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees of McCarthy Brothers Construction
Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement made in accordance with the
provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act requiring
membership in Respondent as a condition of employment
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Immediately write McCarthy Brothers Construction
Company at its place of business in St. Louis, Missouri,
stating that it has no objection to that company's
employment of Kenneth D. Martin as a laborer.
(b) Make whole Kenneth D . Martin for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
causing him to be discriminatorily discharged by
McCarthy Brothers Construction Company in the manner
set forth above under the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at Respondent 's office or union hall copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix " ' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Officer-in -Charge for
Subregion 38, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Officer - in-Charge for Subregion 38
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked
"Appendix" for posting by McCarthy Brothers
Construction Company at its places of business in
Champaign, Illinois, in places where.notices to employees
are customarily posted, if the said employer is willing to
do so Copies of said notice to be furnished by the
Officer-in-Charge shall, after being signed by a
representative of Respondent, be forthwith returned to the
Officer-in-Charge for said posting
(e) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith '
APPENDIX
Dated
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause McCarthy
Brothers Construction Company, its officers, agents,
successors, or assigns, or any other employer, to refuse
to hire Kenneth D. Martin, to discharge him, to limit
his job opportunities, or otherwise to discriminate
against him in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees of McCarthy Brothers
Construction Company in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement made
in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act requiring membership in the Union as a
condition of employment
WE WILL make whole Kenneth D. Martin for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of our
causing his discriminatory discharge.
WE WILL notify, in writing, McCarthy Brothers
Construction Company that we have no objection to the
employment of Kenneth D. Martin by that company as
a laborer
LOCAL UNION No. 703,
LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Officer-in-Charge for
Subregion 38, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
This
anyone.
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
is an
By
(Representative ) (Title)
official notice and must not be defaced by
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Subregion 38, Savings Center Tower, 10th Floor, 411
Hamilton Boulevard, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Telephone
309-673-9291