Plumbers Local 388

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 1252 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 388
(Industrial Mechanical Contractors, Inc.), and Wil-
liam B. Long. Case 7-CB-4190
September 28, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On August 16, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Harold Bernard, Jr., issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the
recommended Order of the Administrative Law
Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Lo-
cal 388, Lansing, Michigan, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order, as so modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph I(c):
"(c) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the
record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
2 In light of Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), we find that the
narrow cease-and-desist language, "in any like or related manner," is ade-
quate to remedy the violation here. Accordingly, we shall modify the recom-
mended Order and notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to refer to a job
any applicant for a job, including William B.
Long, when his turn for referral arrives accord-
ing to our referral system, except to the extent
that our collective-bargaining contract providing
for such a referral list lawfully authorizes some
other applicant to be referred ahead of any ap-
plicant on said referral list.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against applicants
for a job, including William B. Long, by not re-
ferring them to a job because they are not mem-
bers of Local 388.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Indus-
trial Mechanical Contractors, Inc., or any other
employer, to discriminate against any employee
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL notify William B. Long that, when
his turn for referral arrives according to our re-
ferral system, he will be sent to a job, unless un-
der the collective-bargaining contract someone
presenting himself for referral after Long is law-
fully entitled to be referred before Long.
WE WILL make William B. Long whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered, with interest,
by reason of our discriminating against him as
an applicant for a job who presented himself for
referral according to our referral system by not
sending him out when his turn arrived to be re-
ferred.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 388
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HAROLD BERNARD, JR., Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard on May 7 and 8, 1979, pursuant to a com-
plaint issued the previous January 15 alleging that Respon-
dent discriminatorily referred to refer William B. Long to
employment through its exclusive hiring hall in violation of
Section 8(b)( 1)(A) and (b)(2) of the Act.
245 NLRB No. 160
1252
PLUMBERS LOCAL 388
Respondent's answer denies that it has violated the Act.
The issue is whether Long was unlawfully refused job refer-
ral by Respondent because he was not a member in Local
388.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVEI)
Industrial Mechanical Contractors, Inc., is a Michigan
corporation engaged in plumbing and heating construction
work from its principal office and place of business in Flint,
Michigan. Annually, Industrial purchases and receives
plumbing and heating supplies valued in excess of $50,000
directly from sources outside Michigan, and its annual
gross volume of revenue exceeds $50,000.
Industrial is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respon-
dent concededly is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICE
The events in this case occurred from February through
July 1978. I.M.C., along with several pipefitting, plumbing.
and fabricating contractors, including Stanley Carter Com-
pany, Hoyt, Brumm and Link, Glance Killian. Brown
Company and others, were employed at the Fisher auto
body plant in Lansing, Michigan, in connection with con-
struction of a new automobile bodypaint system. This work
required the employment of numerous plumbers, pipefit-
ters, and welders. Link Belt alone employed 60 employees.
including some 15 to 18 welders; all of whom were referred
there by Local 388.
The referrals were made pursuant to a contract between
Local 388 and Lansing Mechanical Contractors Associ-
ation wherein Local 388 is constituted as "the sole and ex-
clusive source of referrals of applicants for employment."'
The parties agreed that by valid letters of assent thereto, the
aforementioned employers were made parties to said con-
tract, and it is clear in the record that Local 388 was the
exclusive source for referrals of employees at all times ma-
terial herein. The hall operates in the usual manner with a
chief union official, in this case Local 388 business agent
Douglas Griffin, in control, receiving requests for employ-
ees in the plumbing craft and referring available applicants
in accordance with criteria set forth in the description of the
system contained in the contract. Thus, there are classifica-
tions by groups, a provision for the maintenance of an out-
of-work list, requests for special skills individuals, and pro-
visions for priority in referrals and the treatement of ap-
prentices. Regarding the referral of nonmembers generally.
the contract contains a provision guarding against discrimi-
nation towards applicants based upon their membership or
nonmembership in the Union. The agreement is silent with
respect to members of other plumbers local unions who
apply as "travellers" for referrals within the jurisdiction of
' G.C. Exh. 2, Art. liI.
Local 388. However, the record shows that there is no hard
and fast rule or clear-cut policy set forth in the Local 388
bylaws or otherwise represented to be official union regula-
tions by which "travellers" are to be accorded any less
rghts than as contained in the contract provisions noted.
Long sought referral from Local 388 as such a traveller
from sister Plumber's Local 639, located about 170 miles
away in Travers City, Michigan, sometime in February. An
experienced pipefitter, plumber-welder who had spent most
of the recent prior years back to 1973 working as a welder,
Long had membership cards plainly identifying him as a
pipefitter in 1978, and also for the period 1979 through
1980. Long visited Griffith in February, with several other
members of Local 639, showed Griffith his union card and
told him that he understood welders were needed. Griffith
told him he could be used, and filled out a referral slip
referring Long to Stanley Carter Company. Griffith check-
marked the referral slips in the box provided therefor at the
bottom of the slips designated "pipefitter": but also wrote
the word "welder" at the bottom of the slip's margin. While
I credit Griffith's assertion that he wrote the term welder to
alter Stanley Carter that Long was a "special skills" refer-
ral. I do not credit Griffith's testimony that he had no
knowledge that Long was qualified as a pipefitter, as well as
a welder, given the clear identification on Long's union card
to that effect, and Griffith's checking of the pipefitter box on
the referral slips, as well as for other reasons infra. Long
was hired by Stanley Carter Company and worked as a
welder. While employed there, Long either instigated or
visibly participated to a considerable extent in a slowdown,
or "wobble" amongst welders and later others as a device to
secure overtime pay for 3 or 4 days. Carter's general fore-
man and a member in Local 388 Robert Eddington's inves-
tigation disclosed to Eddington that Long was an instigator
in the slowdown and he phoned Griffith wanting to dis-
charge Long for that reason. Griffith allegedly told Edding-
ton, who termed Long a good welder, to "work it out" as
welders were needed in the area. Eddington testified that
Long had also watched a track meet instead of working and
has sold belt buckles dunng work time. Eddington spoke to
Long about the slowdown but no measures were taken
against Long as a result of any of the aforesaid conduct.
The wobble occurred at the ent of April and involved 15
welders and about 45 other employees.
Long continued to work at Carter until Friday, June 8
when, along with 30 other employees, Long was terminated
due to an economic cutback in the work force at Carter.
The following Monday Long reported to the Local 388 hall,
once again showed Griffith his union card identifying him
as a pipefitter, and received a referral to work at Hoyt,
Brumm and Link where he began work on June 11 as a
welder, fabricator, and an installer of pipe. The referral job
lasted 4 weeks, and again Long was terminated with about
30 others due to a general curtailment in that company's
work.
Long heard that there was again a need for workers at
the Fisher Body plant site and rode to Lansing with fellow
members in Local 639, Charles Shoemaker on July 10.2
Around 9 a.m. Griffith arrived at the hall and invited the
group, some six or seven, including Long and Shoemaker,
2 Mistaken, placed by Long as on July 1.
1253
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into his office, which was estimated at the hearing to be
about 15' x 15' in size and contained Griffith's desk and
other furniture so that two or three visitors could be seated
while the remainder stood well within sight and hearing
distance of any conversation between Griffith and the ap-
plication then receiving Griffith's attention.
Long, whose testimonial demeanor throughout the entire
course of the hearing was characterized by candor, direct-
ness, calmness, politeness even under pressure, and sponta-
neity, described how events occurred in Griffith's office. He
testified that Griffith spoke first to a member from another
Local; Local 313, looked at his card and referred the mem-
ber to work at Brown Company, as a pipefitter. Another
member then received referral as a pipefitter to Brown
Company, and departed to report for work. The accuracy
in this and other testimony by Long as to referrals made by
Griffith that morning is fully record-substantiated and un-
denied by Respondent. When Griffith got to Long, Long
gave him his union card, described above, and Griffith, ac-
cording to Long and others on the scene, started filling out
a referral slip, much like he had done with the preceding
applicants. However, Griffith stopped doing so only mo-
ments afterward, scratched his head and; with a puzzled
look on his face repeated Long's name once, said it rang a
bell, and then stated in question form whether Long wasn't
the one who caused the slowdown at Stanley Carter. Long
replied that he couldn't lie about it, and admitted taking
part in it. Griffith then allegedly said he had heard Long
had instigated it, and that,
I will not have any of my ... any traveler (sic) interfer-
ing in the operation of running my local union or inter-
ference with my jobs, . . . was any of my local men
involved in it? (the slowdown)
At that point Long replied no, and Griffith told him he
wouldn't have such interference and that he wouldn't send
Long out. When Long attempted to speak, Griffith held up
his hand, tore up Long's referral, threw it in the wastepaper
basket and said "next." Long remained in Griffith's office
and saw Griffith make numerous further referrals on behalf
of the other applicants in the office, including Charles Shoe-
maker, whom Griffith referred to I.M.C. as a pipefitter right
after denying any referral to Long. A witness to this occur-
rence, Plumber's Local 190, member Edwin Winters, testi-
fied that he was present during the time in question and
recalls Griffith asking Long,
Don't you think that (the slowdown) would be up to
the other local people instead of travellers?
Winters otherwise corroborates Long, as does Shoemaker
regarding Griffith's question whether "local" men were in-
volved and other portions in Long's account. Long testified
further that when all the applicants had been referred out
and he was alone with Griffith, that he inquired further into
the reasons for Griffith's actions. Long testified that Griffith
told him that he, Griffith, runs the local, and his people run
the jobs out in the field and that he would have nobody
interfering in any way in any manner.
The General Counsel also called Griffith to testify as to
his version of the events pursuant to Rule 611-C Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Through Griffith, the General
Counsel established the authenticity of 14 referral slips
dated June 10, all pipefitters, to various area employment
including I.M.C., three pipefitters referrals on July I I, also
including referrals to I.M.C., and three on July 13, includ-
ing two more referrals to l.M.C.,-involving pipefitters.
Griffith's version of what transpired is limited to a denial
that the wobble had anything to do with his not referring
Long, and the assertion that he did not refer Long to work
because there was no call for welders that day. Griffith tes-
tified that he didn't believe he gave Long any reason for not
referring him, yet testifies that Long requested referral as a
welder leading Griffith to feel that Long was not an appro-
priate recipient for referal to any other work. He also testi-
fied he didn't know Long was qualified as a pipefitter but
did not deny seeing Long's card identifying him as a pipefit-
ter on at least three occasions when Long reported for refer-
ral. Griffith also acknowledged the requirements for getting
a card like Long's included graduation from an apprentice-
ship school or 5 years' experience in the plumbing industry,
and that there is no classification of welders on it. Further-
more, Griffith admitted that some of the welders referred
out by him "perhaps" did pipefitting work as needed, and,
in any event, that he hadn't even bothered to ask Long
whether he'd be interested in referral as a pipefitter. As far
as any dichotomy between use of welders and pipefitters in
Local 388's practice is concerned, Local 388 member Ger-
ald Spalding, Long's supervisory foreman at Stanley Carter,
testified that he believed Long, a very good welder, could
have worked as a fitter, and that Spalding would use any-
one to do pipefitting. He acknowledges that the checkmark
placed alongside the referral slip box labelled pipefitter by
Griffith on the two occasions when Griffith referred Long to
work signified to him that Long could do the work of a
pipefitter. Spalding also testified that he had assigned a
welder to do pipefitting work. Thomas Andreas, a Local
388 union steward at Hoyt, Brumm and Link testified con-
cerning his knowledge of Long's membership category, and
the type work he did when Griffith had referred Long to the
Hoyt, Brumm and Link job on June 1 1.
Q. Did he (Long) work in any other capacity other
than as a welder.
A. Well, he was on dayshift and I was there when
he worked. Its mostly a mixture. Mostly, you know, I
believe it was welding.
Q. Did you know whether Long was a pipefitter?
A. His card ...
Q. Pardon?
A. His union card ...
Q. What does his union card say?
A. It says ... I believe it says pipefitter.
When questioned why he believed Long had appeared in
his office on June 10 and whether Long had asked for any-
thing, Griffith responded, "I think Mr. Long would have
liked to have gone out to work again." Knowing this how-
ever, Griffith testified he had not even bothered to asked
Long whether he would like referral as a pipefitter, and
testified further that he did not believe he even gave Long a
reason for not sending him out as a welder, merely directing
him instead to job opportunities in another local union's
jurisdiction. Griffith testified that Long probably would
have been hired by I.M.C. as a pipefitter, had he been re-
ferred out, and that there were pending requests for unfilled
1254
PLUMBERS LOCAL 388
jobs when Long was in his office. Griffith did not deny that
in an affidavit made earlier by him he described Long as
being a pipefitter as well as a welder. Long denies request-
ing work on June 10 as a welder, although conceding he
liked, even prefers, to do welding, and testified that when he
went into the Local 388 hall he was pretty much indicating
that he wanted a job.
I credit the accounts of Long, Shoemaker, and Winters
concerning the reasons given Long by Griffith for refusing
to refer Long to work. Theirs is a substantially consistent
portrayal submitted freely and earnestly without embellish-
ment or reluctance. Other than Griffith's truncated version
of events Respondent presented no contradictory evidence;
and even Griffith nowhere in the record flatly denies the
reported contents in the actual conversation, only that the
motive was as he stated it to be in refusing to refer Long,
that Long, as a traveller had instigated a slowdown on the
job, action reserved as it would appear from a plain meet-
ing in Griffith's words to be within the sole preserve of
Local 388 members. That is the only motive that emerges
from this record behind the refusal to refer Long to work.
Griffith hedged in his testimony and had to be directed by
the Court to answer the question whether or not Long had
requested welder work specifically; he admitted to prior in-
consistent statements under oath regarding his obvious
knowledge of Long's qualifications as a pipefitter, and
though he testified that other pipefitters were present when
Long made such statement, none were produced to testify
on Respondent's behalf or during cross-examination of
General Counsel's witnesses were present on that occasion.
Griffith also cannot escape the consequences of denying
any knowledge of Long's preparedness for pipefitting work
in the face of so plain a fact. Finally, he cannot avoid the
debilitating impact on his credibility when he says he gave
no reason at all to Long for refusing him referral to work.
Given the abundance of pipefitter work available to appli-
cants at the hall on July 10, and the ease with which Grif-
fith could have asked Long whether he would like referral
to such jobs, coupled with the obvious importance to job
applicants of such opportunities to work, the only inference
that must emerge is that Griffith was definitely not inter-
ested in referring Long to any work within his Local's juris-
diction. And the reason for that disinterest can only be
Long's trespassing into prerogatives reserved for local union
members. I cannot credit Griffith's truncated account, since
it does not come close to a natural order of things as care-
fully, and accurately depicted by Long, Winters, and Shoe-
maker and because, in the other respects noted, Griffith's
testimony has proved guarded, inconsistent, and unreliable
in important respects. I therefore find that the only reason
for the Respondent's failure to refer Long to work was be-
cause Long, as a traveller and nonmember in Local 388,
had instigated a work slowdown.
It is basic labor law that a union vested with the author-
ity to operate an exclusive referral system, which inherently
encourages union membership by the very nature of things,
has a strict responsibility along with said privilege to refer
applicants for employment in an even handed, nondiscrimi-
natory manner. This established principle is based on the
view that when a union prevents an employee from being
hired, or causes an employee's discharge, the union has
demonstrated a visible power which serves at least pre-
sumptively to encourage union membership. Exceptions to
the rule rest upon either provisions in the Act regarding
lawful union-security clauses or where it may be said the
union's conduct towards the individual was necessary to
"the effective performance of its function of representing its
constituency." Of course, in the instant case the Respon-
dent raises no such defense, disavowing any connection at
all between Long's conduct in the slowdown or on the job
and its refusal to refer him. It follows that there is no need
to determine whether the Union's action against Long was
legitimately grounded on such an exception because the
only asserted reason for Long's nonreferral was the absence
of requests for welders.
Respondent alleges however, that a finding of unlawful
motive in the case is precluded by the admitted fact that
Griffith sent ong out on referral to Hoyt, Brumm and Link
after the alleged wobble at Stanley Carter Company in
which Long participated had already occurred. Respondent
argues that if the Union sought to retaliate against Long it
would have done so at the first opportunity, but instead
Griffith granted Long a referral then. Were this a case
where a finding of violation had to rest upon purely circum-
stantial evidence I would agree that Respondent had a valid
point. See, Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers and Filling Station and
Platform Workers Local No. 705, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (Associated Transport, Inc.). 209 NLRB 292 (1974).
The present finding being based upon the intendment in
Griffith's words, no further proof of an unlawful motive
need be supplied. Respondent also asserts that there was no
showing of a causal connection between Respondent's con-
duct in refusing to refer Long, and Long's nonemployment,
so that no violation has been established. Besides the fact
that there was undiputed evidence concerning the abun-
dancy in work requests. and further indications of work
referrals of pipefitters to I.M.C.. and other employers, im-
mediately before and immediately after Long's turn in line,
not to mention Griffith's own admission that had Long
been referred to I.M.C. he probably would have been hired,
it is well established that such proof is not necessary to
make out a violation of Section 8(b)(2). The Board has con-
sistently found a violation of both Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) where a union has discriminatorily refused to refer an
employee for employment pursuant to terms of an exclusive
referral system in effect between the union and the em-
ployer. Local Union 6 75, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO (S & M Electric Co.), 223 NLRB
1499 (1976). There is no need for evidence that the union
induced any employer to refuse employment. International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local No. 433 (The Associated General Contractors
of California, Inc.), 228 NLRB 1420 (1977). In short, this is
a matter considered appropriate for handling in the compli-
ance stage of this proceeding rather than a matter affecting
the nature of the violation. Standard Fruit and Steamship
Company, 211 NLRB 121 (1974). Respondent further ar-
gues that had Long wanted a job as a pipefitter, he would
have asked for one, an argument without appeal given the
finding that Griffith gave Long an entirely different reason
from lack of welders for not referring him having nothing
whatever to do with possible alternative referrals open to
1255
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Long. Thus, there was no reason for Long to believe such a
request could be anything but futile. Finally, Respondent
argues that the record established that there were no re-
quests for welders on file on July 10 and Griffith's refusal to
refer Long, being based upon Long's status as a welder
constituted union action based upon a "valid classification"
and therefore was lawful, citing Interstate Electric Com-
pany, 227 NLRB 1966 (1977). Since Griffith's version to this
effect is rejected the argument is without merit. Even as-
suming that the lack of referral requests played a role in
Griffith's decision to refuse referral to Long also due to his
involvement in the wobble as a traveller nonmember in Lo-
cal 388, such mixed motive would in no way absolve Re-
spondent of its violation of the Act. Construction, Produc-
tion & Maintenance Laborers' Union, Local No. 383, etc.
(William Pulice Concrete Construction), 236 NLRB 125
(1978). By its stated reason for refusing Long referral be-
cause, as a nonmember in Local 388 Long had instigated a
slowdown, I find that Respondent discriminated against
Long because of his lack of membership in Local 388 the
plain and inescapable inference being that had be been a
member or had the slowdown been a local member action,
there would have been no adverse referral action taken
against him. Accordingly, be discriminatorily refusing to
refer Long, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and
(2) of the Act. International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local Union 18, etc. (S. J. Groves & Sons Company), 227
NLRB 1477 (1977); Operating Engineers, supra; and cases
cited therein; and Pittsburgh Press Company, 241 NLRB
666 (1979); and International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 (The As-
sociated General Contractors of California), supra.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Local 388 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. I.M.C., Inc. is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over Respondent.
3. At all times material herein William Long was an ap-
plicant for employment who presented himself to Local 388
for referral according to the Union's referral system. Said
referral was operated by Local 388 pursuant to its collec-
tive-bargaining contract with LMCA. Said contract pro-
vides that Local 388 shall operate an exclusive hiring hall
for LMCA. At all times material herein I.M.C. was bound
to said contract by letter of assent.
4. By discriminating against Long by refusing to refer
him to jobs because of his nonmembership in Local 388,
Respondent restrained and coerced Long in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to him in Section 7 of the Act.
5. By discriminatorily refusing to refer Long for employ-
ment pursuant to the terms of an exclusive referral agree-
ment because he was a nonmember in Local 388, Respon-
dent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
6. The foregoing unfair labor practices effect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having so found, I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist from the aforesaid conduct and
that it take affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
In veiw of the finding that Respondent discriminated
against Long by not referring him when he was entitled to
be sent out on a job, it will be recommended that he be
considered for such referral without any discrimination. It
will further be recommended that he be made whole for
any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him. In making him whole Respondent shall pay
him a sum of money equal to that which he would have
earned if he had been referred without such discrimination.
Such pay, if any is to be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner established by F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon calculated accord-
ing to Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977): see
generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962). Finally, it will be recommended that Respondent
post appropriate notices.
ORDER3
Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL CIO, Local 388, its offi-
cers, representatives, and agents shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to refer to a job William Long or
any applicant when his or her turn arrives for referral in
accordance with its referral system, except to the extent
that the collective-bargaining contract providing for such a
referral list lawfully authorizes some other applicant to be
referred ahead of any applicant on said referral list.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause an employer to dis-
criminate against an employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
(d) Discriminating against applicants for a job, including
William Long, because of nonmembership in Local 388.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify William Long that when his turn arrives for
referral in Respondent's referral system he will be sent to a
job unless under the collective-bargaining contract someone
presenting himself for referral after him is lawfully entitled
to be sent out before him.
(b) Make William Long whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered, in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled, "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its business offices, its referral hall, and its
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
1256
PLUMBERS LOCAL 388
dayroom, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."4 Copies of said notice, provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 7, after being signed by a duly authorized
' In the event that 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
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."
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
1257