1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Millwright and Machinery Erectors , Local Union
720, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America (Stone & Webster Engineer-
ing Corp .; Multi-Craft Installation Services,
Inc.; and Jacobs Constructors , Inc.) and Marion
C. Wallace and David L . Lewis and Fleet H.
Wallace, Jr. Cases 15-CB-2854, 15-CB-2854-
1, 15-CB-2854-2, and 15-CB-2871
29 March 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 13 July 1984 Administrative Law Judge Wil-
liam A. Gershuny issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
judge's decision.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.2
We agree with the judge that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) by attempting
to cause the discharge or layoff of Fleet Wallace
and by failing to refer David Lewis.3 Contrary to
the judge, however, we find that the complaint al-
legation concerning the failure to refer Ida Marti-
nez is barred by Section 10(b).
The record reveals that on 23 January 1984 em-
ployee Marion C. Wallace filed a charge alleging
that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act by on or about 30 September
1983 bypassing her on the Respondent's out-of-
work list and thereafter harassing, intimidating, and
coercing her because she questioned the operation
of the referral procedure. On 14 February 1984,
Wallace filed an amended charge reiterating the
original allegations but adding that she was by-
passed on the out-of-work list on or about 29 Sep-
tember 1983 for arbitrary, invidious, and discrimi-
natory reasons. The amended charge further al-
leges that on or about 27 July 1983 the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act in
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
2 Because the judge's recommended Order contains several errors, we
shall substitute a new Order
3 Make-whole payments for David Lewis shall be calculated as pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
computed in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) See also Isis
Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
bypassing Ida Martinez on its out-of-work list for
arbitrary, invidious, and discriminatory reasons. It
is clear that as of 14 February 1984 an independent
charge alleging an unlawful failure to refer Marti-
nez on or about 27 July 1983 would have been un-
timely under Section 10(b) of the Act. It is also
clear that neither the original charge nor the
amended charge alleges that the Respondent's re-
ferral policies were generally unlawful or system-
atically arbitrary, invidious, or discriminatory. The
complaint alleges, inter alia, violations of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) based on the Respondent's fail-
ure to refer Martinez on or about 27 July 1983 and
its failure to refer Wallace on or about 29 Septem-
ber 1983.
The judge denied the Respondent's motion to
dismiss the complaint allegations concerning Marti-
nez, finding that Wallace's timely filed original
charge tolled the 10(b) period as to the matters
subsequently alleged in the amended charge con-
cerning Martinez because the Martinez allegations
were related to and arose out of the same course of
conduct as the allegations in Wallace's original
charge. The judge relied on Kelly-Goodwin Hard-
wood Co., 269 NLRB 33 (1984). The judge erred.
In Kelly-Goodwin, the original charge alleged
that the respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by repudiating its collective-bargaining
agreement with the union, unilaterally changing the
employees' terms and conditions of employment,
and locking out two employees. An amended
charge subsequently was filed alleging that the re-
spondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
hiring temporary replacements for the locked-out
employees referred to in the original charge and by
providing the replacements with wages and bene-
fits in excess of those last offered the union. The
lockout of the two employees and the hiring of the
replacements occurred on the same date, which
was more than 6 months prior to the amended
charge but less than 6 months prior to the original
charge.
The Board ruled that the amended charge was
not barred by Section 10(b). This was so because
the locking out of employees (set forth in the
amended charge) and hiring of replacements at
higher wages and benefits (set forth in the amended
charge) constituted a single integrated event that
was composed of two component incidents. Thus
the matters alleged in both the original and amend-
ed charges were "virtually inseparable."
In Kelly-Goodwin the Board cited Allied Industri-
al Workers Local 594 (Warren Molded Plastics), 227
NLRB 1541 (1977). There, the original timely
charge alleged that the respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by levying an excessive fine against the
274 NLRB No. 219
CARPENTERS LOCAL 720 (STONE & WEBSTER)
charging party because of her activities on another
union's behalf. An amended charge alleged that the
respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by attempt-
ing to prevent the charging party from participat-
ing in a union meeting more than 6 months prior to
the amended charge. The Board granted the re-
spondent's motion for summary judgment and dis-
missed the complaint allegation predicated on the
amended charge. The Board ruled that, although
each charge alleged unlawful restraint and coercion
of the charging party, the two charges alleged sep-
arate and distinct violations that arose out of two
entirely independent events.
We find that the instant case clearly is governed
by Allied Industrial Workers rather than Kelly-Good-
win. As noted, neither charge alleges an unlawful
pattern or practice in the Respondent's referral
process. Thus, there is no contention or evidence
that Wallace and Martinez were victimized by an
unlawful, generalized policy. In addition, the fail-
ure to refer Martinez occurred approximately 2
months before the alleged refusal to refer Wallace.
Thus, the two incidents were not temporally relat-
ed. Finally, the complaint's theories and the prof-
fered evidence concerning Martinez and Wallace
were also unrelated. The Martinez violation was
predicated on the alleged intentional but unauthor-
ized waiver of the "5-day rule"4 while the failure
to refer Wallace was allegedly based on a business
agent's inadvertent skipping over Wallace's name
on the out-of-work list. In short, the Martinez and
Wallace incidents were separate and distinct acts,
carried out at different times, for different reasons.
Accordingly, the two incidents were not closely
related and did not arise out of the same course of
conduct. We shall therefore dismiss the allegations
concerning Martinez.5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Millwright and Machinery Erec-
tors, Local Union 720, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
4 Under the 5-day rule, applicants for referral are given a number
which is retained until the applicant is referred to a job which lasts five
or more days The applicant may then reregister, obtaining a new, higher
number if he or she does so
s Member Dennis agrees with the judge that the Martinez allegation is
closely related to the Wallace allegation and is, therefore, not barred by
Sec 10(b) of the Act Even though the alleged discriminatory actions oc-
curred at different times and involved different acts misapplying hiring
hall procedures, both charges allege that the Respondent Union unlawful-
ly bypassed the alleged discrimmatees by failing to follow its hiring hall
referral procedures
1507
(a) Operating its hiring hall in disregard of its ex-
isting hiring hall procedures.
(b) Refusing and/or failing to refer David L.
Lewis, or any other individual, to a job in violation
of its hiring hall procedures.
(c) Causing or attempting to cause the layoff or
discharge of Fleet Wallace, or any other individual,
because of activities in connection with its hiring
hall procedures.
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make David Lewis whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
its failure to refer him on 27 December 1983.
(b) Post at its offices and meetings halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."B Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 15, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director suf
ficient copies of the notice for posting by Multi-
Craft Installation Services, Inc. and Jacobs Con-
structors, Inc., if willing, at all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
6 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT operate our hiring hall in, disre-
gard of existing hiring hall procedures.
1508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT refuse and/or fail to refer David
L. Lewis, or any other individual, to a job in viola-
tion of our hiring hall procedures.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the
layoff or discharge of Fleet Wallace, or any other
individual, because of activities in connection with
our hiring hall procedures.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make David L. Lewis whole for any
loss of earnings or other benefits suffered as a
result of our failure to refer him on 27 December
1983, with interest.
MILLWRIGHT AND MACHINERY
ERECTORS, LOCAL UNION 720,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge.
A hearing was held on May 21-23, 1984, in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, on complaints issued February 23 and
March 26, 1984, alleging conduct by Business Agent
Bennett in his administration of Local 720's job referral
system , in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act.
On the entire record , including my observation of wit-
ness demeanor, I hereby make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaints allege , the answers as amended admit,
and I find that certain named contractors are employers
subject to the Act and that Respondent Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Faced with a declining job market in the Baton Rouge
area and a 66-percent unemployment rate for the more
than 900 members of Local 720, some local union mem-
bers' understandably have focused their attention on
Local 720's job referral system and its administration by
Business Agent Bennett. Their grievances have been
taken to the Board and to the United States District
Court. Thus, during the period relevant to this case, the
Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on one
unfair labor practice charge and recommended with-
drawal of another; and a number of General Counsel's
witnesses are plaintiffs in a civil action pending in the
United States District Court against Local 720 and Ben-
nett. The complaints here arise out of 3 charges and one
amended charge filed in January and February 1984 by
millwrights David Lewis, Marion Wallace, and Fleet
Wallace, her husband.
Local 720's job referral procedures (G.C. Exh. 5),
drafted with the assistance of the International Union
and adopted by a vote of the membership, went into
effect in December 1982. It provides for the maintenance
of two lists, a master list and a day list. The master list
assigns to each registering member a sequential number
which is retained until such time as that member is re-
ferred to a job which lasts 5 or more days; at that time
the member must reregister and obtain a new-and
higher-number. The daily list, used for job referrals, is
signed daily at the union hall between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m.
by members interested in job referrals that day and re-
flects the member's name and master list number. Jobs
are offered to members on the daily list, beginning with
the lowest master list number. Because the daily list is
signed by members as they arrive at the hall, the master
list numbers appearing on the sign-in sheet are not in se-
quence. Accordingly, Business Agent Bennett, who nor-
mally administers the system, first must "unscramble" the
numbers and place them in chronological order, low
number first. As each job is called out, Bennett identifies
the employer, the jobsite and whatever information he
has obtained from the contractor as to the length of the
job. Often, as reflected by the record, information as to
length of the job is quite vague. Jobs are offered to mem-
bers beginning with the lowest master list number ap-
pearing on the daily list. If a member accepts the job, he
is given a referral slip and leaves immediately for the
job. If a job is turned down, it is offered to the next eli-
gible member. Members with low numbers and a history
of unemployment frequently will turn down short jobs
(i.e., 1-2 weeks) because they would have to reregister
on the master list at the completion of that short job,
losing their low number and the opportunity for a longer
job which might be ordered thereafter.
The referral procedures are posted in the hall and con-
tain a procedure for the filing of written complaints
within 24 hours of any alleged discrimination in the op-
eration of the procedures. In practice, as the findings
below reflect, mistakes frequently are called to the atten-
tion of Bennett at or shortly after the time they are made
and are rectified by him immediately.
Under the labor agreements applicable to this case,
Local 720's referral system is a contractor's exclusive
method of hiring, except that a contractor may make a
name request for any qualified millwright who has per-
formed maintenance work or worked for a maintenance
contractor within the preceding 6 months. These con-
tracts will be discussed more fully below in connection
with specific allegations.
The complaints here allege that Bennett unlawfully (a)
failed to refer three eligible millwrights for employment;
(b) attempted to cause the layoff of another millwright
active in protests against Bennett's practices; and (c)
threatened, coerced, and ridiculed two other millwrights
protesting against those practices.
The complaints do not allege, and the General Counsel
does not contend, that the referral procedures themselves
are unlawful.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 720 (STONE & WEBSTER) 1509
B. Board Precedent
Case law now clearly establishes that any union action
which prevents an employer's hire of an employee will
be presumed to encourage union membership among
those who perceive the union's actions and hence will be
found to violate Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act;
that where clear and unambiguous hiring hall regulations
are ignored or violated so as to prevent an otherwise en-
titled individual from being dispatched to employment,
without more, a prima facie violation of those provisions
has been established; that this presumption applies where
the deviation results in the referral of individuals who
were not in fact qualified for dispatch under the hiring
hall rules; and that the Act is violated where a job re-
quest is processed in a manner inconsistent with hiring
hall rules even though the processing was consistent
with its established practice or there is insufficient evi-
dence to find specific discriminatory acts in violation of
Section 8(b)(2). Carpenters Local 25 (Mocon Corp.), 270
NLRB 623 (1984), and cases cited therein.
With these principles in mind, the allegations and the
evidence will be considered.
C. The Failure to Refer Ida Martinez
The material facts are simple and uncontroverted. On
July 27, 1983, a job was called for a female ,journeyman.
Two females with low master list numbers, McMurray
and Martinez, were present at the hall and McMurray,
with the lower of the two, was offered and accepted the
position. Neither Martinez nor any other member object-
ed orally or in writing until February 14, 1984, 6-1/2
months later, when the incident was included in an earli-
er charge filed January 23, 1984, relating to the failure to
refer Wallace in September 1983.1
McMurray, however, had the lower master list
number on that day because Business Agent Bennett
waived the 5-day rule for her and several male journey-
men who had accepted jobs in late June which turned
out to last only 5-6 days. Bennett's "waiver" permitted
them to retain their low master list numbers, rather than
the higher numbers they otherwise would have obtained
upon reregistration on the master list. Bennett had earlier
discussed such a potential inequity with International
president and believed he had been authorized to exer-
cise discretion in the administration of those hiring hall
procedures which had been drafted with the assistance of
the International Union. In later discussions, Bennett
learned he was mistaken and, in fact, had no such au-
thority.
Bennettt's actions in "waiving" the 5-day rule thus
were unauthorized under the hiring hall procedures and
his awarding a job on July 27 to McMurray rather than
Martinez was presumptively violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2), despite the absence of evidence of
i Respondent's motion to dismiss, taken under advisement at the hear-
ing, is denied The timely filing of a charge tolls the time limitations of
Sec 10(b) of the Act as to matters subsequently alleged in an amended
charge which are similar to and arise out of the same course of conduct
as those alleged in the timely filed charge Kelly-Goodwin Hardwood, 269
NLRB 33 (1984) Here, the timely Wallace charge also related to alleged-
ly unlawful hiring hall practices
anti-Martinez motive on the part of Bennett,2 who
simply was exercising the discretion which he believed
he had in the context of a situation which produced
hardship to four other ,journeymen.
Nor has Respondent rebutted that presumption under
Operating Engineers Local 18 (William F. Murphy), 204
NLRB 681 (1973), remanded 496 F.2d 1308 (6th Cir.
1974), reaffirmed 220 NLRB 147 (1975). Bennett's ac-
tions were neither pursuant to a valid union-security,
clause nor "necessary to the effective performance of its
function of representing its constituency." On the, con-
trary, Bennett's actions were contrary to those hiring
hall procedures ratified by his constituents.
D. The Failure to Refer Marion Wallace and the
Related Threat
Paragraph 11 of the complaint alleges the unlawful
failure by Bennett to refer Marion Wallace for employ-
ment on September 29 and paragraph 8 alleges a related
threat on his part the following day to totally ignore
hiring hall procedures.
On September 29, after unscrambling the 34 names and
master list numbers on the daily list, Bennett called out a
job and offered it to journeyman Covington, whose
master list number he believed to be the lowest. Coving-
ton accepted and was dispatched. No protest from the
floor was made. Moments later while noting the referral
on the list, Bennett realized he had mistakenly skipped
over Marion Wallace and two other male journeymen
whose numbers in fact were lower. He immediately went
into the hall and spoke to each of them, relating the fact
of the error and asking whether they wanted the job, in
which case he could call to the contractor's gate and get
Covington turned around before he reported in. Each
said they did not want the job.3
2 The General Counsel makes much of the fact that Martinez and Ben-
nett quarreled in late June over her letter requests to the Local for pen-
sion fund information Bennett told her to go to the Fund for such infor-
mation, but had construed her requests as threats of misconduct and they
had "words " The General Counsel overlooks the facts, however, that
Martinez' missed opportunity on July 27 was not due to any action di-
rected against her, rather, it was action taken in favor of four others in
June, at a time when Bennett could not possibly have known that the
consequences of that action would have a direct impact on Martinez sev-
eral weeks later The record evidence is that Martinez did not sign the
daily list every day and did not accept every job for which she was eligi-
ble. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in this record to indicate that
their spat had any effect on her eligibility for work She was offered jobs
both before and after, based solely on her master list number eligibility
3 Marion Wallace testified that Bennett acknowledged his error but did
not offer her the position on September 29, She did admit being offered
the job the following day Her testimony was corroborated by not a
single witness , despite the presence of 33 other union members in the hall
at the time Her testimony was contradicted by approximately 10 fellow
members she was offered the job on September 29 and she did turn. it
down Indeed, I am unable to credit her testimony on any controverted
fact she obviously was so emotionally caught up in an effort with other
members (they are plaintiffs in pending litigation in the United States Dis-
trict Court against Bennett and the Local) to unseat Bennett and undo
the recently ratified hiring hall procedures that her ability-and willing-
nets-to report the facts accurately was impaired, and, based on my ob-
servation of her demeanor on the witness stand, she was an unconvincing
witness, prone to exaggeration and an absence of candor
1510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Based on my findings that the mistake was acknowl-
edged by Bennett immediately and that Marion Wallace
at the same time was offered but refused the position,
paragraph 11 must be dismissed for want of evidence.'
The September 30 threat allegations of paragraph 8
must also be dismissed for want of evidence. On Septem-
ber 30 (the day after Wallace had been passed over, had
nevertheless been offered the position and had turned it
down), Marion Wallace hand delivered a letter to the
Local, complaining that she had been passed over the
day before and asking that the error "be corrected."
Bennett , having already done everthing he could the day
before to correct his unintentional error, was outraged.
He and Wallace argued loudly, first in his office with the
door closed and later in the hall in the presence of the 50
or so members who were there. Wallace, corroborated
principally by Martinez and partially by three other jour-
neymen (one of whom is plaintiff in the district court liti-
gation; another, whose personal hiring hall charge was
withdrawn, failed even to mention the September 30
threat in his Board affidavit), testified essentially that
Bennett said he was sick and tired of the referral system,
that he would run it the way he wanted, and that he
would skip over anyone he pleased. Bennett's denial, on
the other hand, was corroborated by a number of union
members who were attracted by the argument and over-
heard all or a portion of it and who appeared to have no
special interest in the dispute and no partisan allegiance
to any faction in the local. According to them, Bennett
said in substance that he had a referral system to go by
and he would run it according to those rules as best he
could.
Based on my observation of their demeanor on the
witness stand, I credit generally those witnesses called by
the Local and particularly journeymen Bordelon, Robert
and Frances Gore, and Lindsey, whose testimony was
especially convincing.
E. Alleged Intimidation and Ridicule of Members
Paragraph 9(a), as amended, alleges an attempt by
Bennett, during an October 14 membership meeting, "to
coerce and intimidate" Marion Wallace because she ob-
jected to the manner in which Bennett administered the
referral procedures. Again, the facts as credited5 are
* At the hearing , the General Counsel, with commendable candor,
conceded that the allegation must be dismissed in the event of such find-
ings It should be noted that uncontroverted evidence reflects that, apart
from Wallace , five other journeymen , on four separate occasions, were
passed over , that the mistakes were acknowledged and corrected immedi-
ately by Bennett or reported to and corrected by him immediately, and
that none of these other instances were included in the charge or in the
complaint , despite their having occurred within the 10 (b) period These
mistakes were caused , I find , not by any desire to help or hurt a union
member, but rather by the procedure Bennett employed daily in attempt-
ing to unscramble the numbers on the daily list in an office filled with
union members who were milling about, coming and going , drinking
coffee, and socializing generally in loud voices
5 For reasons set forth in fn 3 above , I am unable to credit Wallace's
testimony . The testimony of Assistant Business Agent Sibley was con-
vincing and consistent with Wallace 's grievance letter of September 30,
requesting that the membership be made aware of the September 29 inci-
dent and that the error be corrected
simple and compel dismissal of the allegation. Before the
meeting, Assistant Business Agent Sibley asked Wallace
and her husband if they wanted her September 30 griev-
ance letter read to the membership. They did and it was
read. In the discussion that followed, Wallace stated in-
correctly that Bennett threatened to skip over anyone
anytime he wanted. Unable to control his temper, Ben-
nett interrupted and called her a "liar." The Act does
not prohibit the free and open discussion of conflicting
views at union membership meetings, even where such
views are expressed by union officials in language which
might be inappropriate and offensive at an afternoon tea
party. Clearly, Bennett was provoked; clearly, Wallace
misstated Bennett's remarks of September 30. Tested ob-
jectively, his strong refutation of her false comments
cannot be considered an attempt to coerce or intimidate
her, as alleged.
Paragraph 9(b), as amended, alleges the unlawful ridi-
culing of journeyman Oursley because he filed a Board
charge. Again, the facts are simple. Oursley filed a
charge on March 7, 1984, alleging an unlawful failure to
refer him for employment. After an investigation which
revealed insufficient evidence to support the charge, the
Regional Director declined to issue a complaint. At a
membership meeting on March 9, Bennett reported to
the membership on the charge, advised them of their
right to go to the Board if there is good reason to do so,
reminded them of the Local's mounting legal costs, and
pleaded with them to attempt first to resolve their prob-
lems internally . It should be noted that the referral pro-
cedures expressly provide for an internal grievance pro-
cedure. Again, this allegation must be dismissed for want
of credible evidence. Except for the testimony of Marion
Wallace (whose testimony I am unable to credit for rea-
sons set forth in fn. 3 above) and her husband (whose af-
fidavit of March 21 does not even allude to the March 9
membership meeting), the General Counsel's witnesses
did not testify that Bennett ridiculed Oursley by calling
him "stupid" or "a dummy." Neither Johnson (no friend
of Bennett) nor Oursley remembered any such remark.
On the other hand, even Fleet Wallace corroborated the
testimony of Respondent's witnesses that Bennett re-
minded the members of their right to go to the Board
with their referral grievances. National labor policy en-
courages the internal resolution of intraunion disputes;
common sense dictates that union officials give similar
encouragement to members to utilize such alternative
procedures for the resolution of disputes, particularly in
the face of declining union membership and income, in-
creasing exposure to judicial and administrative litigation
and mounting litigation fees and expenses.
F. The Attempted Layoff of Fleet Wallace
The complaint in Case 15-CB-2871 alleges the unlaw-
ful, unsuccessful attempt by Bennett to cause the layoff
of Fleet Wallace , Marion Wallace's husband, on Novem-
ber 9 , because of his efforts to monitor Bennett 's admin-
istration of the referral procedures.
I credit the testimony of Contractor Superintendent
Stringfellow , a witness with no apparent interest in the
Local 's hiring hall difficulties , that in November, on one
CARPENTERS LOCAL 720 (STONE & WEBSTER)
of Bennett 's rare visits to a jobsite , he told Bennett of his
plan to lay off apprentice Saale and journeyman Gatlin;
that Bennett encouraged him to lay off Wallace instead
because he was at the hiring hall "aggravating" Bennett;
that he refused to do so because Wallace was needed as
a welder, even though he was off work that day on a
doctor 's appointment ; and that he later overruled an
order of his general foreman (a union member appointed
to the position by Bennett) that Wallace be laid off.
While Bennett testified that he asked for Wallace's
layoff because Wallace previously had requested a layoff,
I credit Stringfellow 's account : there was no apparent
way he could of known of Wallace 's visits to the hiring
hall to look over Bennet 's shoulder , so to speak , except
from Bennett himself; and, by this time , it was apparent
that Bennett's anger at Wallace's tactics was getting the
best of him . Such conduct clearly is violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
G. The Failure to Refer Lewis
Paragraph 12 alleges that Bennett , on December 27,
caused a contractor to rescind a proper name request for
Lewis.
The facts are not in dispute . On December 27, a con-
tractor requested 7 millwrights (including Lewis) by
1511
name . The applicable contract provided for such name
requests without exception or qualification and all seven
millwrights were contractually eligible for name request.
Bennett, acting , I find , solely in an honest and sincere
effort to spread scarce work more evenly among the un-
employed millwrights sitting "on the bench" at the
hiring hall , asked this contractor to do as others were
doing by reducing the number of name requests and
taking 60 percent from the 5 referral lists . Bennett and
the contractor negotiated further , finally agreeing to a
50-50 split . At no time during this discussion did Bennett
mention Lewis ; the ultimate decision as to which of the
millwrights was to be name-requested was made by the
contractor . Millwright Lewis was not on that list and
was not otherwise eligible for referral from the daily list.
Bennett had no authority to alter or amend the name re-
quest provisions of the General President 's Project Main-
tenance Agreement by suggesting a 60-40 or 50-50 limi-
tation . That Bennett intended no harm to any specific
millwright, but rather sought to aid the membership-at-
large , is no legal defense to what clearly is an unlawful
interference with the unambiguous referral provisions of
an applicable labor agreement.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
