Plumbers Local 598

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 75 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

PLUMBERS LOCAL 598
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local Union 598, AFL-CIO (Co-
lumbia Mechanical Contractors Association)
and Roy Anders. Cases 19-CB-3211 and 19-
CB-3294
June 24, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
On January 17, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Joan Wieder 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 conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt her recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her find-
ings.
In sec. Ill1G,3, of her Decision, the Administrative Law Judge states
that Roy McKnight, Respondent's business manager, "admitted that Re-
spondent was currently processing a grievance involving the allegation
that the local violated its own hiring hall rules." Although McKnight ini-
tially testified that in 1978 Ernest Shackleford filed an "internal union
charge," upon further questioning McKnight explained that Schackleford
had not filed a "charge" with the Union, but had filed a charge with the
National Labor Relations Board against the Union. The Administrative
Law Judge's erroneous characterization of this testimony as an admission
that Respondent was "processing a grievance" does not affect the out-
come of our decision.
In sec. Ill,C, of her Decision, the Administrative Law Judge refers to
John Deniff as "a plumber on the 'B' list." The record, however, does
not conclusively establish whether Deniff was on the plumber list or the
fitter list. Deniff's union book specifies that Deniff is a plumber, but
Deniff testified that when he registered at the hiring hall, he expressed a
preference for being dispatched as a fitter. Also, in fn. 28 of her Decision,
the Administrative Law Judge states that the States of Washington and
Oregon have a reciprocal agreement by which plumbers licensed in
Washington can work in Oregon "without getting another license." The
record indicates that plumbers licensed in Washington are permitted to
work in Oregon without taking a licensing examination, but that Wash-
ington plumbers must pay a fee and obtain an Oregon license. These in-
advertent errors do not affect the outcome of our decision
a In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(bXIXA) and (2) (the Administrative Law Judge
inadvertently omitted the 8(bX2) from her Conclusions of Law) of the
Act by removing Roy Anders' name from the hiring list for 3 days in
June 1978, we note the absence of exceptions to this conclusion. In addi-
tion, we find it unnecessary to pass on the propriety of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's comments concerning both the scope of the duty of fair
representation as applied to cases involving alleged misuse of hiring halls
and the presumptive unlawfulness of any departure from contractual
250 NLRB No. 23
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, United Associ-
ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Plumbers and Steamfitters
Local Union 598, AFL-CIO, Pasco, Washington,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
hiring hall rules, even in the absence of evidence of discriminatory
motive.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOAN WIEDER, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me at Pasco, Washington, on January
I I and 12, and Richland, Washington, on March 20 and
21, 1979, pursuant to charges filed June 21 and Septem-
ber 11, 1978,' by Roy Anders, an individual. The com-
plaint, as amended, alleges that United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-
fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Plumb-
ers and Steamfitters Local Union 598, AFL-CIO (herein
called the Union or Respondent), has engaged in certain
violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act).
Issues Presented in Complaint
Whether or not Respondent:
1. Threatened to take Anders before Respondent's ex-
ecutive board for refusing a dispatch.
2. Threatened to take Anders before Respondent's ex-
ecutive board for telephoning the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
3. Removed Anders' name from the dispatch list and
refused to dispatch Anders on or about June 13, 14, and
15.
4. About the second week of August threatened
Anders that Respondent would make it rough for all
members of Anders' home local who traveled to Re-
spondent's geographical jurisdiction unless Anders with-
drew the charges he filed with the Board.
5. Refused and continues to refuse to process a griev-
ance.
6. Since September I failed and refused to dispatch
Anders or dispatched him to jobs which he is not quali-
fied to perform.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally and to file briefs. Briefs,
which were filed, have been carefully considered.
i All dates herein refer to 1978 unless otherwise indicated
75
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record, including especially my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent admits that at all times material the Co-
lumbia Mechanical Contractors Association (Associ-
ation), is a multiemployer collective-bargaining associ-
ation consisting of employers engaged in the plumbing
and pipefitting industry, operating in designated portions
of the States of Washington and Oregon. It also admits
that during the past calendar year the Association's
members, collectively and in the aggregate, in the course
and conduct of their business operations have combined
sales of goods and services valued in excess of $500,000
and combined purchases of goods and materials in excess
of $50,000 from suppliers located outside the State of
Washington. Accordingly, it admits, and I find, that the
Association is an employer engaged in commerce and in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Charging Party, Roy Anders, is a plumber and is
a member of a sister local of Respondent, Local 32, lo-
cated in Seattle, Washington. On June 5, Anders deposit-
ed his travel card with Respondent and signed the out-
of-work list. Anders owns a home in Richland, Washing-
ton, which is near Pasco, Washington, the situs of Re-
spondent's office and hiring hall. Inasmuch as Anders
had recently gotten custody of his children, he decided
to locate in Richland and seek work in that area so that
he could be home in the evenings with his children.
In recognition of Anders' special needs, the business
manager of Local 32, Clark Bowen, informed Respond-
ent's business manager, Ray McKnight, of Anders' situa-
tion and discussed specifically the potential of getting
Anders dispatched to the Hanford area. 2 McKnight in-
formed Bowen3 that he would be able to help Anders
get a job in the area but that it might take a few days to
dispatch Anders. Bowen then informed Anders that
McKnight said "he would get Anders out."
Within a week of the first conversation, Bowen tele-
phoned McKnight and reiterated his request to help
Anders get work. McKnight's response was almost the
same, that Anders would have to be patient a little
while, that he would get work in the area.
The Hanford project is a Federal construction site as well as the lo-
cation of a Washington Public Safety System nuclear power generating
plant which is under construction. Hanford is the site of a large number
of different construction jobs.
s Bowen's testimony is credited based on the fact that it is consistent
with representations made by Respondent to other locals, as exemplified
in the case of Joseph Mondello, discussed hereinafter.
At the time Anders signed in with Respondent, he
asked the individual who was working at the dispatch
window, Vikki Still,4 if he could be placed on the steam-
fitters list, to which the reply was "No."5 Anders paid
his dues and was told he was No. 2 on the B plumbers
list.
B. Referral Procedures
Respondent operates an exclusive hiring hall pursuant
to a contract with the Association. The contract pro-
vides for the maintenance of three separtate out-of-work
lists for each of the trades involved herein, plumbers and
pipefitters. 8
Applicants were placed on the appropriate list accord-
ing to the time and date they registered with Respondent
as out of work. An initial registrant, until September 17,
would file his travel card7 with the local he is seeking
work from, pay dues, and sign the appropriate out-of-
work list.
The record demonstrates that all travel cards did not
clearly designate the proper trade of the registrant. Some
travel cards designated the trade as "BTJ," which is the
acronym for "Building Trades Journeyman" and does
not designate the card holder's trade. Another travel
card stated, under trade, "NTJSTF," an apparent acro-
nym that could not be deciphered. Prior to September,
when an individual tendered a travel card without a spe-
cific trade designation, the clerk would merely ask the
individual's trade and accept the registrant's representa-
tion. Additionally, one business agent, Charles Lewis, ad-
mitted that misclassifications of trade occur very easily.
The travel card should, in theory, accurately reflect the
registrant's trade.
After September, and admittedly in response to
Anders' filing of charges, Respondent altered its reliance
on travel cards in assigning trades and started utilizing
the registrant's union books to ascertain trade classifica-
tions. 8
Prior to September 17, after signing the out-of-work
list, the registrant's workcard was stamped in a timeclock
and the workcard inserted into a Rolodex machine. In
4 Still did not testify.
6 According to McKnight, there was a greater demand for steamfitters
than plumbers at the time.
6 The lists are designated A, B, and C plumbers and A, B, and C
steamfitters. The A lists are comprised of members of Respondent Local
who have worked in the appropriate trade for 4 or more years within the
territorial jurisdiction of the current collective-bargaining agreement. The
B lists are comprised of journeymen who have 4 or more years' experi-
ence at the registered trade who maintain an occupational residence in
the State of Washington outside the area covered by Respondent's collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. The C lists are comprised of all other journey-
men who have worked at the trade for 4 or more years. Individuals on
the B and C lists are referred to as travelers.
7 A travel card is normally issued by the registrant's home local and
was described as an introduction, informing the local where the trades-
man is registering that he is qualified as a journeyman in the designated
trade. When a traveler leaves the local, the foreign local issues a new
travel card, not the individual's home local.
s The "book" is issued by the International and is the approximate size
of a credit card. The book specifies the card holder's trade: plumber,
steamfitter, or pipefitter. The terms "steamfitter" and "pipefitter" are in-
terchangeable. There are no requirements in the contract or the Union's
constitution that the hiring hall use either the union book or the travel
card in registering job applicants.
76
PLUMBERS LOCAL 598
September, again in response to the Charging Party's ac-
tions, Respondent set up a new sign-in list with numeri-
cal designations assigned each registrant in an attempt to
clarify each persons' position and to enable the Union to
check the past lists. These lists do not indicate the total
number of out-of-work registrants who had previously
checked in and held higher positions for dispatch or who
were on different lists.9
Respondent does not keep any records that reflect
where any individual was in the dispatching order on a
particular day. According to Lewis, there is no way of
determining where, exactly, everyone that was on an
out-of-work list stood on any given day, without going
through all the initial sign-ins, work orders, work files,
and the history cards of every member of the local, to
establish an individual's dispatch order. Examining the
card of everyone who signed in on a given date would
not permit ascertaining order of dispatch since individ-
uals signing in prior to that date who were already on
the list would not be included. No records are kept that
would indicate the entire out-of-work list for a given
date. This recordkeeping failure was not alleged to be a
violation of the Act and was not fully and fairly tried.
Under the exclusive referral system, when an employ-
er's request for plumbers is received, it is filled by first
offering the position to the individual with the highest
position on the A list and then proceeding down that list
of plumbers. When the A list is exhausted the dispatcher
will then go through the B list, working from the top of
the list to the bottom. The C list is treated in the same
manner after the B list is exhausted.
Respondent further asserts that registrants are dis-
patched only within their proper journeyman classifica-
tion,' 0 with the exception of those times when all the
lists of a classification are exhausted. Prior to September
17, Respondent admits that some registrants were not
placed in the proper classification due to inaccuracies on
the members' travel cards, as discussed above. Therefore,
some out-of-classification dispatches are admitted but are
characterized by Respondent as inadvertent errors. Re-
spondent states that the operating procedures implement-
ed September 17 corrected the problem.
Respondent's dispatching hours are between 8 a.m.
and 12 noon. The employers call the hiring hall and re-
quest a specified number of journeymen in specified clas-
sifications. Respondent goes to the Rolodex and extracts
the names of the individuals highest on the "list" who
are to be offered the job. When another work order is
received, Respondent again goes to the Rolodex and as-
' These records are maintained on a separate daily basis and filed away
at the end of the day. The record merely reflects the date of check in the
identity of the individual checking in, the list the individual was placed
on, and number assigned as they check in. The list includes new regis-
trants as well as individuals who have terminated their prior position and
are reregistering after having worked more than 160 hours at their prior
employment and therefore lost their position in the dispatching order.
iO According to Charles Lewis, a business representative for Respond-
ent, an individual is classified as either a plumber or steamfitter only after
taking a test in one or the other disciplines. He stated that a member
cannot hold both classifications, they must exercise the option of being
classified under one or the other trade. McKnight was of the view that
an individual could hold a card in both disciplines simultaneously
certains the individuals who are then highest on the list
to be offered the job. l L
Until about September 17, registrants on the A, B, and
C lists were allowed to refuse four job offers before
losing their position on the list.t2 About September, the
contract was renegotiated to provide that only A list
members have the right to four declinations, the others
were dropped to the bottom of the "list" after only one
job turndown.' 3
A turndown or reject occurs when: the individual to
be offered the job does not answer the phone, the phone
is busy, 14 the individual is contacted and expressly re-
fuses the offer, and if someone answers the telephone and
informs the dispatcher that the individual is not available.
All turndowns are noted on the individual's workcard.
The only other time an individual gets dropped on a list
is if they are discharged from a job after working more
than a specified number of hours. 5 This rule was imple-
mented to prevent the turning down of short-duration
jobs. After the termination of employment, the individual
reregisters at the hiring hall and is assigned a position on
the list dependent upon the date and time of reregistra-
tion, the reason for termination of employment, and the
duration of the employment.
Commencing in 1974, Respondent experienced a high
demand for jobs. Presently, the local has approximately
2,000 members and 1,400 travelers. Of the total member-
ship, about 1,500 are A list members, 5 percent of which
are plumbers, and 80 to 85 percent are steamfitters. t
There is a much greater demand for steamfitters. The B
list has approximately 200 individuals, 150 members and
50 in-state travelers. The B list has a ratio of plumbers to
steamfitters similar to the A list, 80 to 85 percent fitters
and 5 percent plumbers. In 1978 Respondent made about
2,500 referrals' 7 from all lists, approximately 95 percent
of which were steamfitters and 5 percent were plumbers.
It is uncontroverted that during the entire summer and
early fall of 1978, the demand to fill work orders was ex-
tremely heavy and in September and October, Respond-
i Generally, Respondent assigned a business representative to perform
dispatching duties. During heavy dispatching periods other business rep-
resentatives assisted the individual who was the designated dispatcher.
12 Lewis admitted that individuals on the B and C lists were permitted
four refusals before being dropped to the botton of the list. However, in
June, according to Lewis, it was the practice of the local to drop individ-
uals on the B and C lists after one refusal, although the contract then
extant admittedly did not limit the right to four declinations to only A
list members. Accordingly, it is found that until the contract had been
modified, B and C lists members had a right to four declinations before
losing their place on the list. The change in the contract was not alleged
to be a violation of the Act and the matters surrounding that change
have not been fully litigated. Accordingly, the change in the contract
will not be considered herein.
l: Respondent's counsel admitted that the contract was changed partly
in response Anders' suit.
"4 It appears that if the telephone is busy, another attempt is made to
reach the individual shortly after the first call is placed.
'' Generally, voluntary quits, when the individual worked less than a
set number of hours, would not result in the retention of position on the
list
16 The apprentices are included on the A list but are subject to differ-
ent rules of dispatch not pertinent herein. Respondent also dispatches
welders and other classifications which, again, are not pertinent to this
proceeding.
I This figure includes all classifications, such as quality control jobs
which were not involved herein
77
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent had exhausted all lists. Accordingly, the waiting
period for dispatch would be very short.
C. The Incidents of June 13, 14, and 15
It is undisputed that Anders, on June 13, was register-
ing at the local when he was offered a dispatch to
Granger, Washington. The job was described as "small
plumbing" and did not include travel pay. Anders re-
fused the offered dispatch. Lewis told Anders, "You
can't pick your jobs here" and requested Anders to wait
a minute. Lewis left and returned with Anders' travel
card. Lewis pushed the travel card through the dispatch-
ing window and, when Anders shoved the card back at
him, Lewis said: "You won't go to work out of this
hall." Anders then referred to Respondent's hiring hall
rules, to which Lewis replied "that doesn't pertain to
travelers." Anders then left the dispatch window to con-
sult the rules which were posted in the waiting area.
Lewis then approached Anders and informed him that he
was taking him before the executive board of Local 598
and was not putting his name back on the out-of-work
list. Anders could not recall Lewis' exact reason but re-
membered it as "something to the effect of not withhold-
ing [sic] the best interest of 598."
Anders then called the National Labor Relations
Board and thereafter returned to the hiring hall to
inform Lewis that the "NLRB told me to tell you that if
you don't put my card, my name back on the out-of-
work list, then I'm going to press charges against you
with the NLRB." Lewis replied that he was taking
Anders before the executive board and would not put his
name back on the out-of-work list.
On June 14 and 15, Anders went to the hiring hall
during dispatch hours and ascertained that his name was
not on the out-of-work list and his travel card was still
on or near Lewis' desk. Anders was not offered dis-
patches on June 14 or 15 and the clerical employee that
was providing him with the information regarding his
standing informed him on June 15 that he was not
"going to be on any list." When Anders returned to the
hiring hall on June 16 he was told that Lewis had been
attempting to contact him since the preceding day.
Lewis then offered Anders a job in Boardman,
Oregon,' 8 that paid subsistence and travel. Anders ac-
cepted the job.
Lewis was subsequently removed from his dispatching
duties because "I made this error and this mistake . . .
when I took his name off the board to write charges
against him." To the best of Lewis' recollection,
McKnight called him into the office and was told that he
was taken off dispatching "until we get this thing
straightened out on this Anders' case and got the hiring
hall back that he was removing me from it." McKnight
admitted that Lewis was removed from his dispatching
duties as a result of the Anders' case.
On June 14, John A. Deniff, a plumber on the B list,
was dispatched to one of the Hanford projects as a
steamfitter. Furthermore, there were other dispatches of
both the B and C list plumbers during this time. The dis-
Is The project was a long-term position, working fior Bechtel Corpora-
lion, which was constructing an electrical generating plant.
patch of Deniff as a steamfitter was not shown to have
been necessitated by the exhaustion of the steamfitters
lists. Respondent admitted through counsel'9 that Re-
spondent has no extant records which accurately reflect
the order of dispatch or the classification of the individ-
uals dispatched during any given day during 1978.
Anders filed charges on June 21 as a result of the June
13, 14, and 15 incidents with Lewis.
D. The Alleged Threats
In early July, McKnight called Bowen,20 stating that
Anders had preferred charges against Local 598, and
McKnight "was concerned that if the charges, if they
went through the ultimate conclusion of the local laws
that the Local 598 members would think pretty badly of
Local 32 members and there might be some recrimina-
tions against them and he was worried of [sic] that."
McKnight admitted that at the time of this conversation
with Bowen, none of Respondent's members said any-
thing to him about Anders having filed a charge.
McKnight also admitted that he requested Bowen to call
Anders "and see surely that he didn't want a problem be-
tween the two locals and see if he could get the charges
dropped." McKnight stated he made no threats against
Local 32 members in the event Anders did not drop the
charge. This denial is deemed to be meaningless since he
admitted mentioning the possibility of "some recrimina-
tions" against Local 32 members in the event Anders did
not drop the charge, despite the absence of any such in-
dications from his membership.
McKnight also requested that Fred Tausch, a business
agent at Respondent Local, visit Anders at the Board-
man, Oregon, site to see if Anders could be persuaded to
withdraw the charges. Tausch did see Anders during the
early part of July at the Boardman jobsite.
According to Anders, Tausch initiated the conversa-
tion: Tausch stated, "Roy, I understand you have some
problems with Chuck Lewis." Anders replied affirma-
tively. Tausch then said, "Well, I'm sorry, I wasn't there
that day, and I believe if I had been, it wouldn't have
happened. Now that it has happened, tell me what hap-
pened." Anders claims he explained the incident in every
detail, stating that Lewis pulled his travel card and kept
it for 3 days, wouldn't put him on the out-of-work list,
and they kept passing him over on the list, that they had
done it before when he previously worked out of Re-
spondent Local. Tausch asked Anders to drop the
charges, and indicated that if he didn't, he might not do
any good because they would do it to him the next time
he came in there. Tausch asked him whether he realized
that if he didn't drop the charges, it was going to make it
rough on all the Local 32 hands. Anders asked him what
he was talking about and Tausch replied, "We will send
them all a long way off, on long way off jobs." Anders
replied, "What do you think you're doing now? That's
what you're doing already." Tausch also asked, "Why
didn't you take Chuck Lewis before the Executive
Board?" Anders replied he did not know how he could
lU See transcript.
"' As previously indicated, Bowen is the business manager of Plumbers
Local 32, Anders' home local,
78
PLUMBERS LOCAL 598
bring Lewis before the executive board. He didn't know
how to get in touch with anybody at the local, the only
person he could talk with was Vikki Still. Anders stated
that if he requested to talk to one of the men, they were
never there, and they wouldn't talk to him if they were.
Taush had asked Anders to drop the charges three times.
Tausch admits that he was asked by McKnight to talk
to Anders at the Boardman site and did suggest that the
Lewis problem be resolved through the Union's execu-
tive board and that the continued pursuit of the charge
with the NLRB could cause friction between the mem-
bers of the two locals. However, Tausch denies telling
Anders that Respondent would only offer Local 32
members dispatches on "long way off jobs." Tausch's
denial is not credited based on his admission that he indi-
cated to Anders that his pursuit of the charge could
result in friction between the two locals, proving the
threat of potential future trouble for Local 32 members
and his lack of clear recollection of most of the conver-
sation. Additionally, the alleged threat is consistent with
McKnight's representations to Bowen, discussing the
possibility of recriminations against Local 32 members,
despite the fact that no Local 598 members had voiced
any animosity toward Anders or Local 32 members at
that time.
Additionally, in the first or second week of August,
McKnight again called Bowen and stated "that the
NLRB had found against Local 598 and that things
might go bad for Local 32 members as a result of it be-
cause of the strong feeling of the 598 members.... He
[McKnight] mentioned something about travel card
members coming in to the Local 598 area, as a result of
this action, would henceforth have to-he would have to
follow the lines of demarcation established for plumbers
and fitters, that he was forced into this." As a result of
this conversation, Bowen telephoned Anders and in-
formed him of McKnight's request to have Anders with-
draw the charges, that McKnight had asked Bowen to
make the call, and that as a result of the charges there
might be some problems with the Local 32 members
working under Local 598's jurisdiction. McKnight ad-
mitted having this second conversation with Bowen and
stated that at the time "he thinks probably some of his
members had become aware of the charges by then . . .
and at one meeting night . . . expressed their concern
about the division among our membership as a result of
these charges." There was no indication that Respond-
ent's members felt animosity toward Anders or Local 32
or gave any cause to fear the possibility of retribution.
Tausch admitted stating "There should be no reason to
pursue it because it could cause friction between the
members of the two locals." McKnight induced Bowen
to call Anders twice on the basis that "things might go
bad for Local 32 members." Bowen admittedly relayed
McKnight's message to Anders. The message clearly in-
dicates the potential of Local 32 members that travel to
Respondent's jurisdictional area, receiving less favorable
treatment than they historically experienced. For the rea-
sons stated above, as well as the demeanor of the wit-
nesses and the guidelines enunciated by the Board in
Northridge Knitrings Mills, Inc., 223 NLRB 230, 235
(1976), McKnight's and Tausch's denials are not cred-
ited.
E. The Grievance
Anders voluntarily quit the Boardman, Oregon, job on
August 29.21 Shortly thereafter, on or about September
8, Anders contacted Mr. McLean, an organizer for the
International, 22 explained what had happened to him and
inquired what could be done about it or what he should
do to get help. McLean stated that he did not usually get
involved in such situations, but that Anders could go to
the local hiring hall grievance committee which every
local maintains and he should make an appointment with
the business manager2 3 to have the problem resolved in-
ternally. 24
Immediately after his conversation with McLean,
Anders telephoned the hiring hall and asked to speak
with McKnight. He was told McKnight was not availa-
ble at that time. Anders then inquired of the individual
to whom he was talking if she knew what procedures he
should follow to discuss his problem. Anders was in-
formed that only McKnight could handle the problem
and that McKnight would return his call shortly. Ac-
cordingly, Anders waited by the phone for 2 or 3 hours
but no one telephoned.
On September II, Anders went to the hiring hall and
asked Vikki Still how one filed a grievance and informed
her that he telephoned the preceding week and the
promised return call was never made. Still was observed
talking to McKnight and when she returned informed
Anders that McKnight said "he would make an appoin-
tement and he would contact you." He was also in-
formed that McKnight was the only person who handled
the problem. Anders made sure his correct phone
number was on file and went to the waiting area.
By letter dated September 15, Anders sought the as-
sistance of the International. The general president re-
plied as follows:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter
dated September 15, 1978 regarding your complaint
of the employment practices of Local Union 598 of
Paco, Washington.
a' Anders gave various reasons for quitting the job at Boardman, the
nature of which casts doubts on his credibility regarding this testimony
However, the reasons for his actions are not outcome determinative and
the discrediting of a portion of his testimony does not require and should
not result in the automatic discrediting of all his testimony Each area of
inquiry will be considered on its merits.
2" United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, referred to
herein as the International
23 The present contract does not contain a grievance procedure within
the hiring hall However, McKnight stated that grievaices are resolved
either through the business manager or through other officials at the
local, and then, if need be, referred to the executive board for resolution
There is no showing on the record that Anders was cognizant of the
Union's procedures in this regard. In fact, the evidence establishes that
Anders was not knowledgeable regarding the proper methods for filing
grievances with Respondent or instituting other measures directed
toward seeking redress within the local.
24 There is no statement in the record of what motivated Anders to
seek resolution of his complaints within the local, whether it was prompt-
ed by McLean's suggestions or not
79
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Please be advised the United Association is not
signatory to the Local Union collective bargaining
agreement which contains the hiring hall provisions
of which you complain, nor have we approved it.
Therefore, we cannot be of assistance, and can only
suggest that you process your complaint with the
grievance procedure provided in the local collective
bargaining agreement.
In a continuing attempt to seek some relief through
grievance procedures, Anders hand delivered a letter to
the local which stated:
I am filing a Grievance against Local #598 and
would like to have an appointment with the Hiring
Hall Rules Grievance Committee as soon as possi-
ble.
I feel that Local #598 has been unfair in passing
my name on the out of work List.
The lack of any response to his prior inquiries prompt-
ed Anders to send another letter on November 14, which
was received. The letter stated:
I would like to have the opportunity to appear
before the Executive Board of Local #598 at the
earliest possible date, and if I am denied that please
let me know why.
I delivered by hand two (2) letters to Local #598
on Friday Sept. 29, 1978 requesting to appear
before the Hiring Hall Rules Grievance Committee.
At this time I have heard nothing in reply to those
letters. I have copies of those letters and also the
names of the people I handed them to.
On December 13, Anders wrote McKnight again re-
questing permission to appear before the hiring hall
grievance committee, stating he had not received any
reply to his prior inquiries, asking if an appointment had
been made on his behalf and if not why. A signed receipt
demonstrates that this letter was received.
McKnight admits that he refused to talk or communi-
cate with Anders regarding his attempts to file a griev-
ance. McKnight based his action on section 222 of the
United Association constitution, which requires the
members to exhaust their remedies within the United As-
sociation.25 Since Anders had filed charges with the
Board regarding the subject matter of the grievance,
McKnight refused to talk or communicate with him.
McKnight viewed Anders' filing of the charge as an
action detrimental to himself and the Union and in con-
travention of the members' obligations under the Interna-
tional's constitution.'
s" There were extensive explorations of the possible internal remedies
that may have been available to Anders, but it is found, based on the
letter response from the International's president and the inability of any
union representative who testified to specify particular avenues of relief,
that there was no demonstrable remedy available outside of the local.
This provision of the constitution was not alleged to be violative of the
National Labor Relations Act, consequently, the lawfulness of the provi-
sion in not considered herein.
" This was the first incident involving a potential grievant who had
filed a charge with the Board, according to McKnight. Therefore, this
F. Other Alleged Failures To Dispatch Anders
The day after Anders voluntarily quit the Bechtel job
in Boardman, Oregon, 27 August 30, he reported to the
hiring hall and signed the out-of-work list.2 s The first
dispatch offered Anders thereafter occurred on Septem-
ber I and was for a job in Hinkle, Oregon. Anders was
present in the hiring hall and at the time he rejected the
offer, informing the dispatcher, Tausch, that he wanted a
job in the Richland area and inquired if he could be
placed on the fitters list, explaining that he knew of two
plumbers who were placed on the fitters list. Tausch did
not comment upon Anders' statement that plumbers have
been placed on the fitters list, but did say that he could
not send him out as a fitter as long as they had work
available for plumbers. Tausch also informed Anders that
if he rejected one or two more jobs he would be placed
at the bottom of the B plumbers list. Anders informed
Tausch that he did not know what dropping him meant
since there were only two or three individuals on the
list. Accordingly, if he was dropped, his chances of re-
ceiving a dispatch were not really jeopardized.
As of August 30, Respondent had initiated a number-
ing system. 2 ' Anders was assigned the number 78-1003.
On September 5, Anders again went to the hiring hall
to sign the out-of-work book.3 0 He did not receive an
offer of dispatch that day, but while in the hall over-
heard conversations between several of the clerical em-
ployees engaged in signing up registrants. He overheard
Vikki Still signing two plumbers as fitters. A coworker
named Susan also overheard the out of classification as-
signments and suggested that Lewis be consulted. Still
left her work place and returned, looking embarrassed
and told the second registrant, "I'm sorry, I have to
bring you in as a plumber, because he has changed his
mind. But last Friday he told me I could do that."'1
Anders' workcard indicates that he was not available
at 10:55 a.m. on September 5. This notation is confusing
due to Anders' testimony, discussed above, which places
him at the hiring hall. Additionally, Anders kept a log
manner of dealing with the problem was the first and only time refusal to
communicate was chosen as the means of dealing with the situation.
" Anders was placed at the bottom of the out-of-work list consistent
with Respondent's rules regarding voluntary quits after working more
than 160 hours on the job.
'a Anders said that one of many reasons he left the Boardman job was
because an official of the State of Oregon indicated that an Oregon li-
cense was required to work at the jobsite. in recent years the States of
Washington and Oregon have had a reciprocal agreement and therefore
plumbers licensed in Washington can work in Oregon without getting an-
other license. Whether Anders was truly confused or was being disingen-
uous is not clear on the record. This matter is deemed to be inadequate as
a basis for discrediting Anders' testimony.
a' According to McKnight, in response to the "Anders' problem," Re-
spondent devised a numbering system whereby everyone registering at
the hiring hall is assigned a number. The list indicates who signed in on a
particular day and the number they were assigned. The lists are kept
daily and do not indicate who checked in previously or who held higher
or lower numbers. There is no way to readily ascertain from the list who
would be selected first for a job.
s0 There is a requirement that the book be signed the beginning of
each month.
a' Still did not testify and there was no direct explicit refutation of
Anders' version of this incident. Respondent makes the assertion that dis-
patches out of classification only occur when all lists in a particular clas-
sification have been exhausted.
80
PLUMBERS LOCAL 598
which indicates that he arrived at the hiring hall about 8
a.m. and remained until about 11:10 a.m.
According to Anders' log, he stayed by his phone on
September 6 and 7, noting that he placed one phone call
on September 6. His workcard contains the notation that
his telephone line was busy on September 6 at 9:20 and
9:25, indicating an attempt was made tu dispatch him
that day.
On September 8, Anders again went to the hiring hall
at 8 a.m. His log notes that Glenn Hickman was the dis-
patcher that day and after A list hands were called, he
started calling C list personr. skipping B list plumbers,
particularly Anders. The log further notes "I went into
the dispatching office and asked Glenn Hickman 32 about
going j,.st B hands and dispatching C hands. He said:
[T]he rules have been changed-you can thank
Local #32 for that-then he asked me what list I
was on and he asked me who I was and when I told
him he smiled and walked away. A while later he
called my name and offered me a job for a Wheeler
Plbg. [sic] Co. in Pendleton, Ore. with no travel. I
refused.
Pendleton, Oregon, is approximately 60 to 75 miles from
his home. Anders recorded in the log only those items
where he felt he had been wronged. At first he carried
his logbook with him and filled it out at night, recording
the events as he recalled them. At the beginning he was
very conscientious about logging all incidents, but later
he would wait 2 or 3 days before recording events and
admits his recollection was then "hazier." The entries in
the log for this period of time appear to have been made
with frequency and thoroughness. The absence of con-
tradictory or controverting evidence, cojoined with the
close proximity to the recordation of the events, leads
me to credit Anders' account.
Anders' logbook further indicates that after this inci-
dent he contacted James McLean and was advised to
call the local's joint hiring grievance committee and
made an appointment to meet with the committee. The
same day, as indicated previously, Anders made his first
attempt to make an appointment with McKnight.
On September 11, the Charging Party again went to
the hall at 8 a.m. He was offered a job in Walla Walla,
Washington, which was approximately 58 miles from his
residence and did not include travel pay. Consistent with
his past practices, Anders refused the job. Tausch, the
dispatcher, then proceeded to dispatch two C list plumb-
ers, Johnson and Budesa, to jobs at Hanford. Tausch said
he recognized that he made a mistake in the out-of-se-
quence dispatches, that he was fairly new to the job and
that they had just started the use of the lists and when
another work order had to be filled, instead of starting
with the A list, he just continued down to the C list.3 3
"2 Hickman did not testify.
" The workcard indicates that Anders was dropped to the bottom of
the B plumbers list after the rejection, which still left him next in line for
dispatch. The workcard also notes that Anders kept the same number,
which confirms McKnight's and Anders' testimony that the B list con-
tained very few names, and the rejection of a job offer would not, in and
of itself, significantly impair Anders' chances for being dispatched after a
short wait.
Tausch's statement is not credited based on the fact that
similar out-of-sequence dispatches were made by Hick-
man just 3 days prior to Tausch's actions. Furthermore,
the precedence of A and B list persons in order of dis-
patch was a longstanding procedure; therefore, based on
logical probabilities, demeanor, Tausch's prior contacts
with Anders both as a coworker and at Boardman,
Oregon, it is highly improbable that Tausch overlooked
Anders or was confused because of his newness to the
position.
Anders was not offered any dispatches between Sep-
tember 12 through September 19.
On September 15, Respondent dispatched a C list
plumber, Joseph Mondello, to a job at Hanford as a
fitter. The out-of-sequence dispatch was explained by
McKnight as a reasonable response in a case involving
hardship. Due to the heavy demand for plumbers and
steamfitters in Respondent's jurisdictional area, Respond-
ent solicited other locals for individuals to fill the jobs.
Mondello was told by his New York local that there
would be a steamfitters job for him when he arrived at
Pasco, Washington.
Mondello deposited his travel card with Respondent
on September 5. He asked to be put on the fitters list but
was told he could only be accepted as a plumber. Mon-
dello informed the clerk that he was informed by his
business agent that Respondent committed itself to dis-
patching him as a fitter and that was how he wanted to
be dispatched. The clerk said he would have to be sent
out as a plumber. He then registered, left the hall and
telephoned his home local business agent to infrom him
about what had occurred and stated that he wanted to
go out as a fitter.
A few days later Mondello was told by his home
local's business agent that "they were having a problem
there" and he should go to the hall where he would be
"taken care of." He returned to the hall on September 8
and encountered the same clerk who held fast to her
prior position, offering to dispatch him as a plumber.
Mondello spoke to Lewis, who informed him "things
had changed" since he left New York and he would
have to go out as a plumber. Mondello pulled his travel
card and left the hall. He testified that he did not want
to work as a plumber anymore. This decision appears to
have been a matter of personal choice inasmuch as there
was no evidence of any pecuniary or physical differences
between the disciplines or any other reason which re-
quired that he work as a steamfitter.34 Mondello again
called his business agent who offered him continued as-
sistance.
When Mondello went back to the hall for a third time,
he encountered the same clerk who, according to Mon-
dello, said: "Oh, you're Mr. Mondello . . . you wanted
to go out as a fitter or a plumber and I said as a fitter
and she accepted my card as a fitter."
Shortly thereafter Mondello was offered a job in
Boardman, which he refused. He then received a dis-
patch as a fitter to Hanford.3 5 Mondello does admit that
34 Steamfitters and plumbers are paid the same wages
3s It is noted that Respondent, in preparing Resp. Exh. 3 entitled
"Index to Plumbers Dispatches for Dates Encompassed by Response to
Continued
81
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he complained to his business agent of the expenses he
incurred in traveling to Pasco, but stated he did not
make a similar complaint to Respondent. It appears that
his business agent did relay the complaint to Respondent.
It appears that Mondello did not present a case of
great hardship inasmuch as his reason for wanting to go
out as a fitter was merely a matter of preference, as ex-
emplified by his refusal of the opportunity to work at
Boardman, a known long-term employment position.
Further, he admitted that he resided in Pasco rent free
his first 2 weeks. The job offer to Boardman discredits
McKnight's testimony that he authorized the out-of-clas-
sification, out-of-sequence dispatch because he believed
there were no plumber jobs available. Another factor
further discrediting McKnight's testimony is his state-
ment that he did not personally change Mondello's clas-
sification and stated "to my knowledge it was not
changed"; but when shown Mondello's work card
wherein the skill classification "plumber" was crossed
out and the term "fitter" inserted with McKnight's ini-
tials authorizing the change, he said he authorized the
change but does not recall to whom he gave the authori-
zation or when. There was no explanation as to why his
initials appear at that place on the card where the skill
change was made.
Another unexplained matter was why McKnight felt
bound to honor Lewis' representations to Mondello's
home local business agent, but did not feel the same obli-
gation to honor his own commitment to Clark Bowen on
Anders' behalf. There was no explanation as to what Re-
spondent construed to be a hardship warranting Mondel-
lo's out-of-sequence, out-of-classification dispatch and not
warranting similar handling of Anders' need as a single
parent to be near home to care for his two children.
The next entry on Anders' workcard is dated Septem-
ber 20. While Anders was at the hall he was offered
three jobs, which he refused, and then was offered a job
at Hanford, which he accepted. On September 26,
Anders was terminated and reregistered at the hiring
hall.
Anders testified that he was not offered any jobs be-
tween September 27 and November 2. The workcard
notes that Respondent's first attempt to contact Anders
was on October 25. The month's hiatus in job offers
during a time of admittedly high demand, described as so
great as to result in exhaustion of all lists, is unexplained.
At the time that the alleged attempt to contact Anders,
Respondent had as Anders' phone number, the home
telephone number of Thomas and Louise Weaver. 3 6
Motion for Bill of Particulars" (September I, 1978, to December 5, 1978),
failed to include the Mondello dispatch inasmuch as he was a plumber
dispatched as a fitter. This omission, as well as other examples of plumb-
ers being dispatched as fitters, including the representations made to
Mondello's home local, and the testimony of John Deniff and Elmer Sim-
mons, warrants the discrediting of the exhibit. Additionally, Bowen's
credited testimony that McKnight said that if Anders did not withdraw
the charge, he would have to stop sending plumbers out as fitters, is an-
other factor which leads me to conclude that the paractice of Respondent
was to send plumbers out as steamfitters at times when the fitters lists
were not exhausted.
36 Anders was preparing to move into his home at Richland, which he
had previously rented and had to give his tenants notice to vacate before
he could move in with his family. Therefore, he asked the Weavers if
they would receive calls from the Union on his behalf The Weavers
Thomas Weaver works on a swing shift. The Weavers
reside in a two-bedroom apartment which is approxi-
mately 800 square feet large and contains two tele-
phones, one in the bedroom and the other in the kitchen.
Thomas usually sleeps in the mornings, but he can recall
one instance when he went out in the morning. Normally
his wife does the shopping-he accompanies her infre-
quently. He does not accompany her on any errand or
with other household affairs. The Weavers have a baby,
so normally one or the other is at home during dispatch
hours. They do not recall receiving a phone call for
Anders on October 25, a week that stands out for them
because that was the week they were visited by a Board
agent.
The workcard indicates that Respondent attempted to
contact Anders on October 25, 1978, at 10:00, 10:05, and
10:10, and were unsuccessful so he was placed at the
bottom of the list and given number 78-1012.3' A
plumber on the C list was dispatched as a fitter to Han-
ford on this date. The card does not note the nature or
location of the job that was to be offered Anders.
The Weavers' testimony is credited based on demea-
nor, the fact that the interview by personnel of the Gen-
eral Counsel's office made their recollections of that
week extremely clear, and the previously noted inconsis-
tencies between Respondent's noted lack of offers for a
month at a time when the demand for workers was ad-
mittedly so great that during the month all lists were ex-
hausted, resulting in very short waiting periods between
job offers.
A further factor which places into doubt the accuracy
of the notations on Anders' workcard is the fact that Re-
spondent admittedly called the Weavers on November 2
to offer Anders3 8 a job at Quincy, yet there is no entry
on the card noting the offer, or its admitted rejection.
Anders testified that he received no job offers from
November 2 until December 6, when he received the
offer of a job at Hanford, which he accepted. Respond-
ent noted on his workcard that it made attempts to call
him on November 1, 3, 7, 20, and 21, and December 6. It
is undisputed that no offers were made between Novem-
ber 7 and 20, a 13-day period, and between November 21
and December 6, a 14-day period. The evidence indicates
that on November 2, a C list plumber was dispatched,
and there is no entry on Anders' card indicating that he
had been previously offered the job. There is an undated
entry on Anders' card which Respondent argues is evi-
dent from its position on the card, a rejected job offer,
for on November 21 he was assigned number 78-1019
when he held 78-1017 on November 20.
agreed. The Weavers were not clear when they assumed the duty of re-
ceiving his calls but there is no dispute that they were taking his calls the
week of October 25.
37 Anders' number for the preceding month was 78-1010. The loss of
one position once again reaffirms the prior testimony and findings there-
on that there were very few plumbers on the B list. Additionally, the loss
of only one place on such a short list during a time of admittedly great
job availability, a time when the lists were exhausted due to a great
number of work orders, places into doubt the validity of Respondent's
sparse records of job offers to Anders.
38 Anders moved into his Richland home on November 1.
82
PLUMBERS LOCAL 598
G. Analysis and Conclusions
In considering whether Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the following principles are ap-
plied. When a union is acting in a statutory representa-
tive capacity, it is prohibited from taking action against
any employee upon consideration or upon the basis of
classifications that are irrelevant, invidious, or unfair.
Miranda Fuel Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 181 (1962). In
the application of this principle, it is recognized that a
wide range of reasonableness must be allowed the statu-
tory bargaining representative in serving the unit it rep-
resents, subject to complete good faith and honesty of
purpose in the exercise of its discretion. Ford Motor Com-
pany v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 337-338 (1953).
Consequently, Section 8(b)(1) (A) does not proscribe
every act of disparate treatment sg or negligent con-
duct,'40 but only those which, because motivated by hos-
tile, invidious, irrelevant, or unfair considerations, may
be characterized as "arbitrary, discriminatory or bad
faith conduct." Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). Sec-
tion 8(bX)IXA) prohibits unions from restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, subject to the proviso not here
pertinent that unions may prescribe their own rules
"with respect to the acquisition or retention of member-
ship therein."
Section 8(bX2) of the Act prohibits unions from caus-
ing an employer to discriminate against an employee
through encouraging or discouraging membership in any
labor organization. In International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 18, AFL-CIO (William F. Murphy), 204
NLRB 681 (1973), the Board explained the application of
this section of the Act to the Union's operation of an ex-
clusive hiring hall as follows:
When a union prevents an employee from being
hired or causes an employee's discharge, it has dem-
onstrated its influence over the employee and its
power to affect his livelihood in so dramatic a way
that we will infer-or, if you please, adopt a pre-
sumption that-the effect of its action is to encour-
age union membership on the part of all employees
who have perceived that exercise of power. But the
inference may be overcome, or the presumption re-
butted, not only when the interference with em-
ployment was pursuant to a valid union-security
clause, but also in instances where the facts show
that the union action was necessary to the effective
performance of its function or representing its con-
stituency. 4
3s See United Steelworkers of America Local Union 2610 (Bethlehem
Steel Corporation), 225 NLRB 310 (1976).
40 See General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union. Local No.
692, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs Warehousemen a
Helpers of America (Great Western Unifreight System), 209 NLRB 446
(1974).
4a Cf. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 40. United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbers and Pipefitters Industry of the
United States and Canada. AFL-CIO (Mechanical Contractors Associations
of Washington, 242 NLRB No. 168 (1979).
1. The incidents of June 13, 14, and 15
There is no dispute that Lewis did remove Anders'
name from the out-of-work list on June 13, and that
Anders' name was not replaced on the list until June 16.
It is also undisputed that the contractual hiring hall rules
do permit job turndowns under one prescribed penalty,
dropping to the bottom of the list only after a set
number of turndowns.
Respondent argues that the General Counsel has not
met his burden of proof by showing discrimination; that
out-of-order dispatches were not pursuant to established
exceptions to the hiring hall rules, or that the failures to
dispatch were not due to the alleged discriminatee's own
unavailability or unwillingness to work. Further, Re-
spondent argues that the complaint limits the allegation
of failure and refusal to refer to a period on or about
September i, 1978, and continuing. This argument is
considered without merit inasmuch as the complaint
clearly refers to paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof which dis-
cuss the removal of Anders' name from the out-of-work
list on those dates as constituting violations of Section
8(b)(1XA) and (2) of the Act.
The removal of Anders' name from the out-of-work
list precluded him from being dispatched in the manner
prescribed in the contractual hiring hall rules. The inter-
ference with employment was not pursuant to a valid
union-security clause, nor was it necessary for Respond-
ent's effective performance of its function of representing
its constituency. This action of rendering Anders un-
available for referral is deemed discriminatory, for it was
motivated by factors in contravention of the hiring hall
contract and was admittedly caused by Lewis' pique at
Anders exercising his right of refusal. International Asso-
ciation of Bridge, Structural, Reinforcing and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local 75, AFL-CIO (Bob C. Keith, and In-
dividual Proprietor d/b/a Tyler Reinforcing), 232 NLRB
1194 (1978); Millwrights and Machine Erectors' Local No.
1699, AFL-CIO (Swinerton and Walberg Company), 159
NLRB 1337 (1966), and International Union of Operating
Engineers, Hoisting and Portiable Local No. 513, AFL-
CIO (S. J. Groves and Sons Co.), 199 NLRB 921 (1972),
enfd. 85 LRRM 2303 (8th Cir. 1973).
In the circumstances of this case, although Lewis' ire
was apparent, it is not necessary to show motivation
where the Union, as here, departs from its lawful con-
tractual hiring hall rules and the admitted standards of
referral in denial of employment. Such action, standing
alone, is discrimination which inherently discourages
union membership. See Local Union No. 725 of the
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO (Powers Regulator Company), 225
NLRB 138 (1976).
The record further shows that on June 14, John Allen
Deniff was dispatched to a job at Hanford as a steamfit-
ter. Deniff's membership card shows he was a plumber.
There was no evidence indicating that all the plumbers
lists were exhausted, but if this was the case, then cer-
tainly Anders should have received a dispatch. In further
support of this conclusion, the exhibits show that a C list
83
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individual was dispatched as a steamfitter and another B
list individual was dispatched as a plumber.
These facts, standing alone, may arguably be construed
as insufficient to show that individuals with lower stand-
ing on the out-of-work lists were, in fact, dispatched
ahead of Anders or that Anders failed to progress up the
list in the proper manner. However, the removal of
Anders' name from the out-of-work list is a prima facie
case of discrimination, and Respondent, as sole custodian
of the hiring hall records, admits that the hiring hall rec-
ords are kept in a manner that precludes the precise re-
construction of referrals on a given day or days. The
Union's own failure to maintain records does not obviate
its burden of rebutting the General Counsel's prima facic
case of discrimination. See Seafarers' International Union,
Atlantic, Gulf Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-
CIO (American Barge Lines), 244 NLRB No. 99 (1979),
and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local
No. 282, AFL-CIO (Millstoren Construction Company, et
al.), 236 NLRB 621 (1978). From the foregoing, it is con-
cluded that Respondent's removal of Ander's name from
the hiring list for 3 days constituted a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act.
Counsel for the General Counsel also alleges that
Lewis' threat to take Anders before the executive board
was based on Anders' informing Lewis that he spoke
with a representative of the National Labor Relations
Board and therefore was conduct in violation of Section
8(bXIXA) of the Act. Anders admitted that Lewis first
threatened him with keeping his name off the out-of-
work list and taking him before the executive board
prior to Anders calling the NLRB or threatening to do
so. The fact that Lewis repeated the threat after Anders
subsequently informed him that he contacted the
"NLRB" and indicated he would file charges if his name
was not replaced on the out-of-work list cannot be con-
strued as a threat having its genesis in the NLRB con-
tact. Under these circumstances, the threat cannot be
found to have been motivated or induced by Anders'
contacting a Board agent or indicating his intent to file
charges. It is therefore concluded that the complaint, al-
leging that Lewis' threat to take Anders before the ex-
ecutive board and refusing to place his name back on the
out-of-work list does not constitute a separate violation
of the Act. Accordingly, it is recommended that the por-
tion of the complaint alleging that Lewis' threat consti-
tuted a separate violation of Section 8(b)(X)(A) of the
Act be dismissed.
2. The alleged threats
It is undisputed that Anders was asked by Tausch and
Bowen, pursuant to requests by McKnight, to drop the
charge he filed with the Board. However, Respondent
asserts that these requests were merely prompted by a
fear that historically friendly relations between itself and
Local 32 might be impaired. Respondent denies that any
threats were made to Anders or that it was guilty of re-
straint or coercion.
For finding a violation in these circumstances, the
Board in Graphic Arts International Union 96 B (Williams
Printing Company), 235 NLRB 1153 (1978), applied the
following rule of law:
It is well established that a union may not resort
to restraint and coercion in order to restrict the
right of an employee-member to file charges with
the Board, and that such conduct constitutes a vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In determin-
ing whether conduct amounts to restraint or coer-
cion in the exercise of an employee's Section 7 right
to seek redress from the Board, the test is an objec-
tive, rather than a subjective, one and depends on
whether, in the circumstances of a given case, the
probable effect of the conduct is to restrain or
coerce an employee in the exercise of his Section 7
rights.
Threats regarding employment related matters are coer-
cive. See Red Ball Motor Frieght, Inc., 157 NLRB 1237
(1966); Hughes Aircraft Company, 159 NLRB 1080 (1966);
and Petersburg Associates, 239 NLRB 1091 (1978). Based
on the credited testimony, it is found that threats affect-
ing Anders, as well as fellow members of Local 32 in
their dispatches, were made because Anders filed charges
with the Board that were employment related, in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A).
3. The grievance
In its brief Respondent argues that it abolished its
grievance procedure in 1976, hence no violation can be
found. This argument would normally be persuasive.
However, in the instant proceeding, McKnight has ad-
mitted that Respondent was currently processing a griev-
ance involving the allegation that the Local violated its
own hiring hall rules. Furthermore, Tausch admittedly
tried to induce Anders to withdraw the charges and seek
resolution of their differences through internal methods.
Based on Tausch's representations to Anders and
McKnight's admission that they have found a means of
processing another's grievance, it is hereby found that
Respondent does have a mechanism, regardless of the
name given, to process grievances.
If in fact McKnight did believe that there was no
method extant to process the grievance, then the reasons
he gave for his failure to communicate with Anders, i.e.,
the Union's constitution which requires exhaustion of in-
ternal remedies prior to seeking redress from outside
sources, is mendacious. The nexus of the complaint
herein is whether Respondent met its statutory duty to-
wards Anders.
As the Board stated in Miranda Fuel Company, Inc.,
supra, 140 NLRB at 189, citing International Union of
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, Frigidaire Local
801 v. N.L.R.B., and the companion case of N.L.R.B. v.
General Motors Corporation, Frigidaire Division, 307 F.2d
679, 683 (D.C. Cir.):
Among the most important of labor standards im-
posed by the Act as amended is that of fair dealing,
which is demanded of unions in their dealings with
employees. See N.L.R.B. v. International Woodwork-
ers, 264 F.2d 649, 657 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 361
U.S. 816 (1959). The requirement of fair dealings
between a union and its members is in a sense fidu-
ciary in nature and arises out of two factors. One is
84
PLUMBERS LOCAL 598
the degree of dependence of the individual employ-
ee on the union organization; the other, a corollary
of the first, is the comprehensive power vested in
the union with respect to the individual.... The
requirement of fair dealing is not limited to union
members; when an individual becomes an employee
of a company having a union-security clause in its
contract the new employee is not free to join or
refuse to join a union, nor does he have a voice in
the selection of his bargaining representative. He
takes the existing union and its contract in effect as
one of the conditions of his employment. From the
beginning of his employment, the union which can
require his membership or command his discharge is
therefore charged with an obligation of fair dealing
which includes the duty to inform the employee of
his rights and obligations so that the employee may
take all necessary steps to protect his job.
The concept of fair dealing is not limited to situations
involving union-security clauses but includes the process-
ing of grievances, as indicated in Groves-Granite, a joint
Venture, 229 NLRB 56, 62-63 (1977), as follows:
A union is permitted a wide range of discretion
in determining whether and how to handle employ-
ee grievances, so long as its determination is not
colored by considerations that bear on union mem-
bership or are otherwise arbitrary or in bad faith.
Misconduct ordinarily cannot be inferred from a
union's simple refusal to institute grievance action;
nor does negligence or poor judgment, untainted by
improper considerations, give rise to a violation. As
in other dealings with those it represents, however,
a union may not purposely keep employees unin-
formed or misinformed concerning their grievances;
and having committed itself to the prosecution of a
grievance, a union is under a duty to present it most
favorably to the employee.
It could be argued that McKnight's refusal to handle
Anders' grievance was not based on hostility or disparate
treatment or that his decision to require sole union juris-
diction pursuant to the Union's constitution4 2 was nei-
ther arbitrary nor perfunctory. See Forsyth Hardwood
Company, 243 NLRB No. 150 (1979). This argument is
not persuasive under the facts of this proceeding.
McKnight admitted that he considered Anders' filing of
a charge as an action detrimental to him personally as
well as detrimental to the Union. The manner in which
this feeling was expressed at the hearing demonstrated
hostility and ire. McKnight's hostility was further dem-
onstrated in the methods repeatedly employed to induce
Anders to withdraw the charge, resulting in the finding
above that threats had been made. Another indicia of
bad faith is the fact that Tausch tried to induce Anders
to resolve the difficulty through internal measures, yet,
when Anders did try to resort to intraunion resolution,
his efforts were ignored. This ackowledged ignoring of
Anders' and McKnight's willful refusal to communicate
4t It is noted that the union constitution does not prescribe the action
that the Local is to take in the event "internal remedies" are not exhaust-
ed, nor does it define "internal remedies."
with Anders was ostensibly based on the Union's consti-
tution. However, McKnight could not refer to any pro-
vision of the Union's constitution which required his
studied inaction.
If, in fact, McKnight truly believed that he was pre-
cluded from proceeding with intraunion processing of
the grievance, there still is no explanation for his failure
to communicate this decision to Anders. As the Board
stated in the Miranda and Groves-Granite decisions, supra,
the Union has a duty to keep employees informed. Ac-
cordingly, I find that McKnight's admitted decisions not
to inform Anders regarding the basis for his failure to
process the grievance through the executive board was
based on hostility engendered by Anders' filing a charge
with the Board.
It could be further argued that Anders, having filed a
charge, obtained the Union's responsibility to process the
grievance. However, this argument overlooks the fact
that a union has the responsibility of fair dealing and if
this responsibility were abrogated by the fact that a
charge is filed, this would act coercively as a hindrance
of access to either the Board's or the Union's process. If
this argument prevailed, it would result in the abrogation
of the Union's statutory duty of fair representation to an
employee who exercises his Section 7 right to seek re-
dress from the Board for alleged wrongdoing by the stat-
utory representative. Such a result is contrary to law.
See Graphic Arts International Union 96 B (Williams
Printing Company), supra. The recourse to grievance pro-
cedures is encouraged to effect speedy resolution of dis-
putes; yet, in the event such procedures fail, recourse to
remedies from the Board must be preserved. See Vaca v.
Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 185-186 (1967).
As McKnight admitted, the refusal to consider the
grievance or communicate with Anders about the inter-
nal union procedures was unrelated to the merits of the
grievance and was solely based on Anders having filed a
charge with the National Labor Relations Board. Ac-
cordingly, it is found that Respondent failed to accord
Anders fair and impartial representation because he had
filed charges under the Act and sought the protection of
Federal law and Board processes, based on personal hos-
tility, and, hence, restrained and coerced Anders in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(bXl)(A) of the Act.
4. Other alleged failures to dispatch Anders
As previously discussed, Respondent's principal de-
fenses are that the General Counsel failed to show dis-
crimination; that the out-of-order dispatches were not
made pursuant to established exceptions to the hiring hall
rules;43 or that the alleged failures to dispatch Anders
4S There were several examples of apparent out-of-order dispatches
which were explained as dispatches of supervisors which were estab-
lished as exceptions to the hiring hall rules, one referral slip misclassified
the individual as a C list plumber when he actually was a B list plumber,
and one C list plumber was dispatched on November 21, a date on
which, according to Anders' workcard, he was telephoned twice but his
line was busy. Respondent admits in its brief that the contention that sev-
eral of the dispatches alleged to be dispatches of supervisors are based
upon hiring hall documents that do not clearly reflect the nature of the
dispatch
85
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were not due to his own unavailability or unwillingness
to work.
Based on the evidence credited hereinbefore, it is con-
cluded that Respondent, contrary to its assertions, did
not strictly follow the hiring hall rules of dispatching
plumbers only as plumbers, unless the steamfitters lists
were exhausted. McKnight admitted to Bowen that Re-
spondent would "henceforth ... have to follow the
lines of demarcation established for plumbers and fit-
ters." Also, as previously indicated, Anders overheard
Vikki Still signing up plumbers as steamfitters on Sep-
tember 5.
4 4 Accordingly, it is concluded that dispatching
plumbers as steamfitters was an established exception to
the hiring hall rules and such out-of-classification dis-
patches were not dependent upon the exhaustion of the
fitters lists. The failure to accord Anders the same or
similar treatment given Deniff and Simmons is conse-
quently found to be demonstrative of discrimination.
Another manifestation of discriminatory treatment is
exemplified by the dispatch of Mondello. Mondello was
offered a job as a plumber at Boardman and refused
simply because he did not wish to work anymore as a
plumber.
4 5 The claim of economic hardship could not
have been believed since he refused the Boardman job
offer, a position noted for potential long-term employ-
ment. However, even assuming arguendo that Mondello's
dispatch was due to a belief that he was experiencing
hardship, Respondent failed to establish that hardship is
an established exception to the hiring hall rules. Further-
more, Respondent failed to distinguish Mondello's hard-
ship from Anders. As the Board stated in General Truck
Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers and Automotive Employ-
ees Local 315, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Rhodes & Jamieson, Ltd.), 217 NLRB 616, 618 (1975):
The prohibition of decisionmaking supported by
no reason, as well as decisionmaking for impermissi-
ble reasons, is a modest enough beginning for us.
Although an employer may discharge an employee
for no reason at all without violating the Act, we
held in Miranda Fuel that unions have obligations to
employees they represent that employers do not.
And if a duty to avoid arbitrary conduct, as part of
" Additional examples of Respondent registering and dispatching
plumbers as steamfitters is the testimony of John Deniff and Elmer Sim-
mons. Deniff registered with Respondent the first week of June and
re-
quested work as a fitter. He does not know what he was registered
as,
but approximately 2 days after registering, he was dispatched as a steam-
fitter. Simmons is on the C list. His dues book shows he is a plumber,
yet
he was dispatched as a fitter on June 20 to a job at Hanford.
Prior to his
dispatch to Hanford, he worked for Bechtel for approximately
2-1/2
years. His testimony demonstrates that Respondent dispatched Simmons
previously as a plumber. Simmons' dispatch to Hanford as a steamfitter
occurred shortly after Anders sought dispatch as a steamfitter.
4' It could be argued that the initial refusals of Respondent to refer
Mondello as a steamfitter is indicative of the claimed practice of not
making out-of-classification referrals until all the fitters lists have been
ex-
hausted. The argument is more than adequately refuted by the fact
that
Mondello's home local was contacted and informed that he could
in fact
receive an out-of-classification referral without preconditions being
men-
tioned. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent's initial refusals
to
refer Mondello as a steamfitter were the result of the change
in policy
McKnight told Bowen would occur if Anders did not withdraw
the
charges.
an affirmative, fiduciary responsibility, means any-
thing, it must mean at least that there be a reason
for action taken. Sometimes the reason will be ap-
parent, sometimes not. When it is not the circum-
stances may be such that we will have no choice
but to deem the conduct arbitrary if the union does
not tell us what it is.
Respondent did not refute Anders' testimony that
Hickman passed him over and dispatched C hands on
September 8. Hickman's statements at the time indicated
that some hiring hall practices were modified in response
to Anders having filed a charge.
Respondent admits that it passed over Anders on Sep-
tember II1, but avers that it was a mistake. As previously
indicated, the claim of mistake is not credited based on
the personal acquaintanceship between Tausch, the dis-
patcher, and Anders, that a similar occurrence arose just
3 days previously, and the fact that, regardless of any
claimed procedural changes, B list members had always
taken precedence over C list individuals. Thus, this ad-
mitted deviation from the hiring hall rules cannot be
deemed as inadvertent and the testimony claiming mis-
take is not credited.
Although Respondent claims and Anders was pro-
vided ample opportunities for dispatch, the events of Oc-
tober 25 and November 2, as recorded or not recorded
on Anders' workcard, bring into grave question the ac-
curacy and reliability of that document. That Respond-
ent had a plethora of job opportunities during September
and October is admitted, resulting in the exhausion of all
lists at times, yet from September 26 until October 25,
Anders' workcard, as unreliable as it is, indicated that he
was not afforded any opportunity for dispatch. Since the
October 25 notation is questionable, the next notation is
November 1, 1978.46 The job offer of November 2 was
to Quincy. The workcard indicates that between Novem-
ber I or 2 until December 6, Anders was called on No-
vember 3, 7, and 20, creating 13- and 14-day hiatuses in
offers. The offers that were documented indicate that the
jobs were located in towns that were some distance from
Richland. As discussed hereinbefore, this pattern of re-
ferrals followed the promised recriminations in the event
Anders did not withdraw the unfair labor practice
charges filed with the Board.
The paucity of offers at a time when demand was ex-
tremely high, and the nature of the job offers compared
to what was apparently available to Mondello and
others, require the conclusion that Respondent refused to
refer applicants for jobs in a manner consistent to the
contractual hiring hall rules and exceptions thereto. It is
further concluded that these very sporadic offers to dis-
tant jobs are indicative of discriminatory intentions and
do not break the chain of illegal conduct.
41 It is recog-
nized that this conclusion is based, in part, on inferences
4' As discussed previously, the acknowledged job offer of November 2
is not noted on Anders' workcard and perhaps the November 1 notation
reflects the events of November 2.
47 See Local 90. Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons' International
Association of the United States and Canada. AFL-CIO (Southern Illinois
Builders Association), 236 NLRB 329 (1978), enfd. 606 F.2d 189 (7th
Cir.
1979).
86
PLUMBERS LOCAL 598
drawn from the evidence of record, but it is found suffi-
cient to make a prima facie case. The need for inference
is caused by Respondent's admitted failure to maintain
records in a manner that would permit establishing the
order of dispatch for any day or days during the period
involved. As previously found, the Union's burden of ne-
gating the General Counsel's prima facie showing of dis-
crimination in hiring referrals is not abrogated by the
Union's failure to follow an orderly and recorded refer-
ral procedure. Seafarers' International Union, Atlantic,
Gulf Lakes and Inland Waters District (American Barge
Lines), supra, and Laborers' International Union of North
America, Local No. 282 (Millstone Construction Co.),
supra.
From the foregoing, and from the record as a whole,
it is concluded that Respondent refused to refer Anders
and referred him in a discriminatory manner wherein
stricter administration and interpretation of the hiring
hall rules were applied to dispatches offered him because
he filed unfair labor practice charges against the Local.
By such conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A)
as well as 8(b)(2) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Columbia Mechanical Contractors Association
is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act and engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By summarily removing the name of Roy Anders
from the dispatch list in disregard of the contractually
prescribed procedure for dealing with rejections for of-
fered jobs, and by continuing to refuse to replace his
name on the dispatch list for 3 days, Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)XA) of the Act.
4. By threatening Anders and other members of Local
32 with recriminations unless Anders withdrew the
unfair labor practice charge filed with the National
Labor Relations Board, Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to process or communicate
about a grievance filed by Anders because he filed an
unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Re-
lations Board, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1XA) of
the Act.
6. By failing to refer and by refusing to refer Roy
Anders in a manner consistent with established hiring
hall practices from September 16 to December 6, 1978,
because of his failure to withdraw the unfair labor prac-
tice charges he filed with the National Labor Relations
Board, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Respondent did not violate the Act in any other
manner.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and that it shall take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act. With respect to the latter, Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 598 shall be ordered to make Roy
Anders whole for any loss of earnings he may have suf-
fered by reason of its unlawful conduct in: removing his
name from the B plumbers dispatch list, and in refusing
to dispatch him in a manner consistent with established
hiring hall practices, with backpay to be computed on a
quarterly basis, making deductions for interim earnings
and with interest to be paid on the amounts owing, and
to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 139 NLRB 716 (1962), enforce-
ment denied on different grounds 322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir.
1963).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER48
Respondent United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Plumbers and Steamfitters
Local Union 598, AFL-CIO, Pasco, Washington, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Summarily removing names of employees from its
dispatch lists in disregard of the provisions of its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and in derogation of its fidu-
ciary obligation to those persons who utilize the services
of Respondent's hiring hall.
(b) Threatening or coercing employees for filing unfair
labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations
Board.
(c) Failing to adequately represent Roy Anders, or any
other employee, in grievance or other internal union
matters by abandoning interest in the individual's griev-
ance or other remedy seeking action based upon their
filing an unfair labor practice charge with the National
Labor Relations Board or upon any considerations that
are arbitrary or capricious or discriminatory.
(d) Failing to refer Roy Anders or any other individu-
al who is lawfully entitled to referral in a manner con-
sistent with established hiring hall practices in contraven-
tion of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Co-
lumbia Mechanical Contractors Association, or in any
other manner discouraging or encouraging membership
in the Union or any other labor organization by discrimi-
nating against them in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any terms and conditions of employment.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
'4 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
87
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse, in the manner described in the section
of this Decision under the heading "The Remedy," Roy
Anders for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a
result of Respondent's unlawful conduct in removing his
name from its plumbers B dispatch list and by failing and
refusing to refer him in a manner consistent with the col-
lective-bargaining agreement and established hiring hall
practices.
(b) Operate its exclusive hiring hall in a nondiscrimina-
tory manner in accordance with the provisions of its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Columbia Me-
chanical Contractors Association.
(c) Post at its business offices, hiring hall, and meeting
places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 4 9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
49 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT summarily remove your names
from our dispatch lists for rejecting a job offer in
disregard of the procedures prescribed in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which provides the pen-
alties for rejecting job offers.
WE WILL NOT threaten or coerce employees for
filing unfair labor practice charges with the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide access to
internal union or local remedies or fail or refuse to
communicate with individuals about such remedies
because you file unfair labor practice charges with
the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT refuse to refer or refer individuals
in a manner inconsistent with established hiring hall
practices and the provisions of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL operate our exclusive hiring hall in a
nondiscriminatory manner and in accordance with
the provisions of our collective-bargaining agree-
ment wiht the Columbia Mechanical Contractors
Association.
WE WILL make whole Roy Anders for any loss
of earnings he suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion practiced against him.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA, PLUMBERS AND
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION 598, AFL-
CIO
88