Mona Electric

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 7, 2010

05-CB-010616 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 7, 2010)

JD–22–10
Clinton, MD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL 24 (MONA ELECTRIC)
and Case 5-CB-10616
JOHN D. REECHEL, AN INDIVIDUAL
Johnda Bentley, Esq., and Thomas J. Murphy, Esq., of Baltimore, MD,
for the General Counsel.
Clark D.Browne, of Greenbelt, MD,
for the Charging Party.
John M.Singleton, Esq., of Owings Mills, MD,
for the Respondent-Union.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Bruce D. Rosenstein, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on
February 1 and 2, 2010, in Baltimore, MD, pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing (the
complaint) issued on October 30, 20091 by the Regional Director for Region 5 of the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board). The complaint, based upon a charge filed on July 2, by
John D. Reechel (the Charging Party or Reechel), alleges that International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 24 (the Respondent or Union), has engaged in certain violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely
answer to the complaint denying that it had committed any violations of the Act.
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
maintaining a policy and informing applicants and members that they were prohibited from
recording telephone numbers or any other information from the referral records related to its
operation of an exclusive hiring hall.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following

1 All dates are in 2009 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Mona Electric Group, Inc. (the Employer), is a Maryland Corporation with an office and
place of business located in Clinton, Maryland, and is engaged in the business of providing
electrical services. During the preceding twelve months, a representative period, the Employer
has performed services in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of Maryland,
including the District of Columbia. The Respondent admits and I find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
At all material times, the Employer has been a member of the Baltimore Division,
Maryland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association, (NECA) that is composed of
various employers engaged in the electrical contracting industry, one purpose of which is to
represent its employer-members in negotiating and administering collective-bargaining
agreements with the Respondent. On or about June 1, 2008, the Respondent entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement with NECA that is effective until May 31, 2011. Since at least
June 1, 2008, the Employer who is engaged in the building and construction industry, granted
recognition to the Respondent as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit
and, since that date, the Respondent has been recognized as such representative by the
Employer without regard to whether the majority status of Respondent had ever been
established under the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act. Since at least June 1, 2008, the
Respondent and NECA have entered into and, since that date, have maintained a collective-
bargaining agreement requiring, inter alia, that the Union be the sole and exclusive source of
referrals of employees to work as electricians in the following classifications: general foreman,
foreman, sub-foreman, journeyman and apprentice (GC Exh. 2-Section 4.02).

At all material times, Gary Griffin has served as the Business Manager of the
Respondent while Peter Demchuk holds the position of President.

B. The 8(b)(1)(A) Allegations
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 8 and 9(c) of the complaint that the
Respondent has orally promulgated a policy and informed applicants and members that they
are not permitted to review and record telephone numbers or any other information from the
referral records related to the operation of its exclusive hiring hall.
The Hiring Hall Rules (GC Exh. 3)
No applicant for employment shall be registered unless he appears at the hiring hall in
person and requests to sign the respective out of work book. (Groups I, II, III, IV)2 This may be

2 Group I consists of all applicants for employment who have four (4) or more years
experience in the trade, are residents of the geographical area constituting the normal
construction labor market, have passed a Journeyman Wireman’s examination given by a duly
constituted inside Construction Local Union of the IBEW, or have been certified as a
Continued
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3
done Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (except holidays).
Upon requesting to register on the out-of-work list,3 all applicants shall complete an
application for referral. All persons registered on the out-of-work list shall re-sign within 30 days
of each registration and/or re-sign date. Re-signs may take place by signing the appropriate
out-of-work list in person, by mail, e-mail or by fax.
Manpower calls for the following day will be posted on a job hotline and available for
review after 6:00 p.m. Applicants seeking any available job must register on a daily sheet (Day
Book) that is only available Monday-Friday, from 8:00 a.m.-8:45 a.m. (sharp).
Referrals will then be processed in the manner of the lowest number on the out-of-work
list to the highest number on the out-of-work list for those who have signed the Day Book. Job
call starts will commence immediately after the Day Book sign-up is complete.
Facts
The Charging Party is a journeyman wireman with over 20 years experience in the trade
and is a dues-paying member of the Respondent. In January 2004, the Charging Party formed
Sovereign Electric, LLC. In his capacity as Owner/President, he signed on February 5, 2004, a
Letter of Assent with NECA and the Respondent (GC Exh. 4). By the execution of that
agreement the Charging Party agreed to be bound by all of the provisions contained in the
current and subsequent labor agreements between NECA and the Respondent. The terms of
the Letter of Assent establish that it shall remain in effect until terminated by the Charging Party
by giving written notice to NECA and the Respondent at least one hundred fifty (150) days prior
to the then current anniversary date of the applicable approved labor agreement.
The Charging Party, due to financial constraints, suffered the forfeiture of the Sovereign
Electric, LLC Charter in December 2008 (GC Exh. 20). By letters dated October 20, and
January 18, 2010, the Charging Party notified the Respondent and NECA that he would like to
dissolve the Letter of Assent immediately (GC Exh. 10 and 19).
The Charging Party, on March 19, signed the out-of-work list for Group I.4 In reviewing
_________________________
Journeyman Wireman by any inside Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, and, who
have been employed in the trade for a period of at least one year in the last four years in the
geographical area covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Group II covers all
applicants for employment who have four or more years’ experience in the trade and who have
passed a Journeyman Wireman’s examination given by a duly constituted Inside Construction
Local Union of the IBEW, or have been certified as a Journeyman Wireman by an Inside Joint
Apprenticeship Training Committee. Group III includes all applicants for employment who have
two (2) or more years’ experience in the trade, are residents of the geographical area
constituting the normal construction labor market, and who have been employed for at least six
(6) months in the last three (3) years in the geographical area covered by the collective
bargaining agreement. Group IV consists of all applicants for employment who have worked at
the trade for more than one year.
3 The out-of-work list consists of the applicants name, card number, and telephone number.
4 Once an individual is registered on the out-of-work list, any employer needing manpower
sends a form into the Union hall, and those jobs are listed on the telephone hotline at night so
every unemployed member can hear what jobs are available. Signing the out-of-work list
establishes your place in line. Signing the daybook let’s the referral agent know exactly who is
Continued
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
his March 27 referral application, the Respondent determined that the Charging Party did not
qualify for Group I status because he did not submit sufficient documentation to conclusively
establish that he was employed in the trade for a period of at least one year in the last four
years in the geographic area covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between NECA
and the Respondent. The Respondent notified the Charging Party of this deficiency and in a
telephone conversation between the Charging Party and Griffin on March 30, Reechel was
informed that he must provide documentation to establish his qualifications for Group I. The
Charging Party signed the out-of-work list for Group I a second time on April 20 but did not do
so in May 2009. Accordingly, he was dropped from the out-of-work list because he exceeded
the 30 day re-sign period.
By letter dated April 5, the Charging Party requested a hearing before the Referral
Appeals Committee under Article IV of the collective-bargaining agreement between NECA and
the Respondent (GC Exh. 12).
By letter dated April 9, the Respondent informed the Charging Party that he must
provide verifiable proof of employment in the trade for one of the last four years in Respondent’s
geographic jurisdiction. Additionally, the Respondent informed the Charging Party that
examples of such proof could be W-2’s, paycheck stubs, or tax returns (GC Exh. 5).
By letter dated April 16, the Charging Party informed the Respondent that he would like
to inspect the referral records for the hiring hall (GC Exh. 15).
By letter dated April 21, the Appeals committee acknowledged receipt of the Charging
Party’s complaint regarding not being allowed to sign the Group I Referral Book. The
Committee scheduled a hearing date of May 6 to address the complaint (GC Exh. 13).
By letter dated May 5, the Respondent requested the Charging Party to provide specifics
regarding which referral records and dates he was looking for (GC Exh. 16).
By letter dated May 10, the Charging Party informed the Respondent that he wanted to
review Book I, II, and III from 2/01/05-5/10/09 (GC Exh. 17).
By letter dated May 13, the Respondent reserved May 21 for the Charging Party to
review the referral records (GC Exh. 18).
By letter dated May 13, the Appeals Committee informed the Charging Party that due to
a lack of evidence and his inability to establish that he met the requirements to sign Referral
Book I, it had no option but to affirm the Business Managers prior ruling (GC Exh.14).5
The Charging Party, on May 21, appeared at the Respondent’s hiring hall to inspect
Books I, II, and III. Demchuk informed the Charging Party that while he could review the
records no notes or any other information could be copied from the referral books.
On or about January 12, former Union President Willard Richardson sent a letter to the
Respondent asserting that he had reason to believe that the referral procedures had been
_________________________
in the Union hall that day so the individual can be placed in order and referred for work when
jobs are available.
5 The Charging Party filed an unfair labor practice charge on June 11 in Case 5-CB-10598
raising the same allegations. After investigation, Region 5 dismissed the charge on September
16 (R Exh. 2).
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
administered in a disparate fashion regarding his placement and eligibility for Group I (GC Exh.
23). In this regard, he believed that there were other individuals similar to him that had not
worked in the geographic jurisdiction of the Union for a period of at least one year in the last four
years yet were still permitted to be placed on the Book I out-of-work list. Richardson requested
permission to examine the referral records including the out-of-work list, registers and
applications of applicants, referral slips issued and any other logs or registers of dispatches
made from January 1, 1999 to January 11. Richardson further informed the Respondent that at
the time of his examination of the documents, he may request copies of pertinent records.
In late January 2009, Richardson went to the hiring hall and was permitted to review the
hiring hall records. Both Griffin and Demchuk were present during the review process. While
Richardson was permitted to copy information from the out-of-work list including dates and
names, he was informed by Griffin that he could not copy or record telephone numbers of those
individuals on the out-of-work list. Richardson returned to the hiring hall twice in February 2009
and once in July 2009 to continue reviewing the referral records but did not attempt to record
telephone numbers based on the prior admonition from Griffin.
In early February 2009, Richardson filed an appeal with the Appeals Committee
regarding the administration of the referral procedures by the Respondent. The Appeals
committee scheduled a hearing to take place at the Respondent’s hiring hall on February 25
(GC Exh. 21).
On March 2, the Appeals Committee issued its decision concerning the complaint that
Richardson had filed. It found the three allegations that Richardson alleged regarding violations
of the referral procedures could not be substantiated (GC Exh. 22).6
Richardson testified that the Respondent, during political campaigns for local and
Presidential elections, has made available the telephone numbers of members to canvasses
them for political reasons. The Respondent did not rebut this testimony.
Griffin testified that around 1998, and continuing since he became Business Manager in
July 2007, the Respondent maintained a policy prohibiting applicants or members from copying
telephone numbers from the referral records. This policy/practice is unwritten and has never
been memorialized as part of its hiring hall rules (GC Exh. 3). Griffin admitted that telephone
numbers of members who are sick are released if a fellow Union member contacts the hiring
hall and specifically requests a sick member’s telephone number. Griffin also acknowledged
that while Union members are reviewing the hiring hall records, there is nothing preventing them
from seeing the telephone numbers of other applicants and it is possible that they could
memorialize them at a later time. Lastly, Griffin noted that during his tenure as Business
Manager, only the Charging Party and Richardson have asked to review the hiring hall records
and record telephone numbers of individuals on the out-of-work list. He also testified that during
his tenure, approximately ten Union members out of a membership of 2300 have complained
about the release of their telephone numbers.

6 Richardson filed an unfair labor practice charge in Case 5-CB-10557 raising the same
allegations. After investigation, Region 5 dismissed the charge and on appeal the General
Counsel, on August 25, sustained the dismissal (R Exh. 1).
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
Discussion
A union’s duty of fair representation includes an obligation to provide access to job
referral lists to allow an individual to determine whether his referral rights are being protected.
Operating Engineers Local 324, 226 NLRB 587 (1976); Boilermakers Local 197, 318 NLRB 205
(1995). Thus, a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it arbitrarily denies a member’s request
for job referral information, when that request is reasonably directed towards ascertaining
whether the member has been fairly treated with respect to obtaining job referrals. NLRB v.
Carpenters Local 608, 811 F.2d 149, 152 (2nd Cir.1987), enfg. 279 NLRB 747 (1986). When a
member seeks photocopies of hiring hall information because he reasonably believes he has
been treated unfairly by the hiring hall, the union acts arbitrarily by denying the requested
photocopies, unless the union can show the refusal is necessary to vindicate legitimate union
interests. Carpenters Local 608, supra, at 755-757. See also Carpenters Local 35
(Construction Employers Assn.), 317 NLRB 18 (1995).
In paragraph 8 of the complaint, the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent
prohibited applicants from recording telephone numbers from the referral hall records.
Griffin admitted in his testimony that since at least 1998, the Respondent has maintained
an unwritten rule that members or applicants are precluded from recording telephone numbers
from the hiring hall records. This practice was in effect when Richardson was permitted to
review the hiring hall records in January, February, and July of 2009, but was told he could not
record any telephone numbers from those records.
The evidence conclusively establishes that Richardson informed the Respondent that he
believed the hiring hall referral rules have been improperly administrated and have negatively
impacted his ability to be referred for available work opportunities (GC Exh. 23).
The Respondent’s arguments that objections from its membership to the release of their
telephone numbers from the hiring hall records because of privacy concerns is rejected for the
following reasons. First, the Respondent has no prohibition against applicants and members
reviewing the hiring hall records including the out-of-work list that contains the name of the
member, card number and telephone number. Second, the Respondent during political
campaigns for local and Presidential elections has made available the telephone numbers of
members to canvasses them for political reasons. Third, if a member requests the telephone
number of a sick co-worker to offer get-will wishes, the Respondent will provide the member
with the telephone number. Fourth, since at least July 2007, only approximately 10 Union
members out of a total membership of 2300 have objected to the release of their telephone
numbers.
Under these circumstances, and in agreement with the General Counsel, when as here
a member seeks to photocopy or record telephone numbers from the hiring hall records
because he or she reasonably believes they have been treated unfairly, the Union acts
arbitrarily by denying the requested information. Accordingly, I find that by denying Richardson
the right to photocopy or record telephone numbers from the out-of-work list, the Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Carpenters Local 102 (Millwright Employers
Association), 317 NLRB 1099 (1995) (Prohibiting the copying of phone numbers from hiring hall
records violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act).
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7
In Paragraph 9 of the complaint, the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent was
aware that the Charging Party reasonably believed he was improperly barred from signing the
book for referral, from Group I, out of the referral hall and that around May 21, Demchuk told the
Charging Party that he could not record any information from the referral hall records.
The evidence establishes that the Charging Party filed on June 11, an unfair labor
practice charge against the Respondent in Case 5-CB-10598 (R Exh. 2). In dismissing the
unfair labor practice charge on September 16, Region 5 noted that the Charging Party indicated
that he was employed by his own company, Sovereign Electric, LLC, both in the trade and in the
geographical area covered by the collective-bargaining agreement, and entered into a Letter of
Assent with the Respondent in 2004 (GC Exh. 4). The Letter of Assent states, inter alia, that
Sovereign Electric, LLC agrees to be bound by the provisions of the labor agreement between
the Respondent and NECA.
Reference to the collective bargaining agreement (GC Exh. 2) shows that Section 4.18
provides that “ A representative of the Employer or the Association, as the case may be,
designated to the Union in writing, shall be permitted to inspect the Referral Procedure records
at any time during normal business hours.” The record confirms, and the Charging Party
admits, that during 2009 the Letter of Assent that he previously executed as the owner of
Sovereign Electric, LLC was in full force and effect.7 Thus, by permitting the Charging Party to
review the hiring hall records including the out-of-work list on May 21, the Respondent fully
complied with the requirements of the collective-bargaining agreement. Under those
circumstances, there was no requirement to permit the Charging Party to record any information
from the hiring hall records including telephone numbers. Additionally, I find that the General
Counsel did not conclusively establish that the Respondent was aware that the Charging Party
reasonably believed he was improperly barred from signing the book for referral, from Group I,
out of the referral hall. In any event, due to the Charging Party’s status as an Employer, the
Respondent fully complied with its obligations under the collective- bargaining agreement.8
Under these circumstances, I find that the Respondent did not violate paragraph 9 of the
complaint or Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when it maintained a policy that
prohibited applicants and members from recording telephone numbers from the referral hall
records related to the operation of its exclusive hiring hall.

7 The Charging Party did not attempt to dissolve the Letter of Assent until October 20 with
the Respondent and January 18, 2010 with NECA. The Letter of Assent provides, however,
that it can not be terminated until after the expiration of the current collective bargaining
agreement which in this case remains in effect until May 31, 2011.
8 In its post-hearing brief, the General Counsel recognizes that if Reechel is an Employer
and not an employee under the Act at the time he requested to review the referral records, the
Act would not be violated.
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 24, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Denying requests for photocopies or to record telephone numbers contained in
referral records from employees who are registered for referral from its exclusive hiring hall and
who reasonably believe they have been improperly denied referrals.
(b) 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 necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Honor Willard Richardson’s request for photocopies or to record telephone numbers
contained in our referral records.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office and hiring hall
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 5 after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since January 26, 2009.

9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
10 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words
in the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
9
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
(d) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 7, 2010
_____________________
Bruce D. Rosenstein
Administrative Law Judge
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
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 arbitrarily deny requests for photocopies or to record telephone numbers
contained in our referral records from employees who are registered for referral from our
exclusive hiring hall and who reasonably believe they have been improperly denied referrals.
WE WILL NOT maintain a policy prohibiting applicants who are registered for referral
from our exclusive hiring hall and who reasonably believe they have been improperly denied
referral from recording telephone numbers from referral records.
WE Will NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL honor Willard Richardson’s request for photocopies or to record telephone
numbers contained in our referral records.
WE WILL rescind our policy of prohibiting applicants who are registered for referral from
our exclusive hiring hall and who reasonably believe they have been improperly denied referral
from recording telephone numbers from referral records.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 24 (MONA ELECTRIC)
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
103 South Gay Street, The Appraisers Store Building, 8th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-4061
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
410-962-2822.
JD–22–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
11
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 410-962-2864.