Ralph J. Haskell, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 316 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laborers International Union, Local Union No. 7,
AFL-CIO (Ralph J. Haskell, Inc.) and Howard J.
Van Dyke. Case 3-CB-3165
September 25, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 10, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Her-
zel H. E. Plaine issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Laborers International
Union, Local Union No. 7, AFL-CIO, Binghamton,
New York, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
' We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that there is insuf-
ficient evidenw in Ihe record to establish that the Employer had signed or
had otherwise bewme bound to the 1974-76 collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the New York Slate Chapter of the Associated General Con-
tractors of America and several local unions of the Laborers International
Union. Accordingly. we need not pass on and therefore do not adopt the
Administrative Law Judge's alternate rationale that, even if the Employer
had signed this agreement. it would not have been obligated to comply there-
with beyond the agreement's expiration date of March 31. 1976.
a member of a sister Laborers Union Local 1358. of Elmira
and Corning, New York.
The complaint' alleged that. in violation of Section
8(b)(2) and 8(b)(I)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act), Local 7 caused Van Dyke's discharge because he
was not a member of Local 7. The General Counsel con-
tended that Local 7 accomplished this result by threatening
to picket the Haskell job at Vestal unless employee Van
Dyke was removed and replaced by a member or members
of Local 7. and that employer Haskell capitulated to the
t reat and complied with the Local 7 demands rather than
f ce a work stoppage.
Respondent admits that it sought to replace employee
an Dyke with Local 7 members and that it succeeded in
oing so, but claims that with employer Haskell it was
roperly enforcing an alleged existing collective-bargaining i
a reement, which gave priority in jobs to persons in the
ographic jurisdictional area of Local 7. P!
The General Counsel denies that employer Haskell was
alleged unfair labor
The case was tried in Binghamton, New York, on Octo-
r 6, 1978. Only the Union has filed a brief.
Upon the entire record of the case, including my observa-
of the brief, I make
Ralph J. Haskell, Inc., until it went out of business after
une 30. 1978. had been a New York corporation in the
onstruction industry, doing principally site preparation
nd utility work. with its principal office in Elmira, New 1 ork.
i
In the year preceding the filing of the complaint and in
t e prior two years, according to part-owner and principal
anaging officer Bruce Haskell, the Haskell company
ossed over $1 million each year in services performed.
he individual transactions were each in excess of $50,000 P
r customers including New York Telephone Company,
ew York State Electric and Gas Company, and General
lectric Corporation, which were companies engaged in
ommerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the let.
As the parties admit, Ralph J. Haskell. Inc., was an em-
loyer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Ct.
As the parties also admit, Respondent Union is a labor
rganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
* DECISION
1 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Administrative Law Judge: Re-
spondent-Union, Laborers Local 7. which has headquarters
in Binghamton, New York, has been charged with unlaw-
fully causing the discharge in March 1978 of Charging
Party Howard Van Dyke from the employ of construction
contractor Ralph J. Haskell, Inc., headquartered in Elmira,
New York, while the employer performed a subcontracting
job at Vestal, in the vicinity of Binghamton. Van Dyke was
1 A. The Employer's Business Operations
The Haskell company appeared to have been a family
owned and managed business, in which the owners and of-
Filed May 16. 1978. and amended June 6. 1978. on a charge filed by Van n yke on April 6. 1978.
245 NLRB No. 45
LABORERS LOCAL UNION NO. 7 317
ficers were brothers Ralph and Bruce Haskell and sister
Helen Keeton. Ralph's son, Gregory (Greg) Haskell, was
superintendent and overseer of jobs in the field, commenc-
ing about 1974 or 1975. He had worked as a mechanic
before that. The evidence provided no indication that
Ralph Haskell was active in the business in the last years of
operation, but did establish that Bruce Haskell was the
chief managing officer in charge at the Elmira headquarters
and that Bruce's nephew, Superintendent Greg Haskell,
looked to Bruce for direction and guidance, and that Greg's
aunt, Helen Keeton, handled paperwork and other admin-
istrative functions at the Elmira office.
The Haskell company was in the construction business,
doing principally, said Bruce Haskell, site preparation and
utility work.
The sewer job that the Haskell company had at Vestal,
near Binghamton, New York, was a subcontract from Two
Rivers Construction Company, a general contractor for the
Town of Vestal, according to Superintendent Greg Haskell.
The subcontract stated that the Haskell company would do
a boring under a highway and install a sewer casing for the
laying of pipe, and provide the shoring over and around the
boring, according to William (Bill) Craven, who had been
an employee of the Haskell company for 18 years and was
foreman of Haskell's Vestal job. Craven was a machine op-
erator and operated the boring machine on this job. The
shoring, to be done with wood boards and a wood frame,
was the function of the laborer assigned to the job in March
1978. He was Howard Van Dyke, who had worked for the
Haskell company as a laborer for the prior 6 years.
The Haskell company performed its work with union la-
bor.' Foreman Bill Craven was a member of an operator's
union, and employee Howard Van Dyke was a member of
the Laborer's Union Local 1358 of Elmira and Corning,
New York. Prior to becoming an operator, Craven had also
been a member of Local 1358. In this connection, the H a s
kell company was a member of the Construction Industry
Employers Association of South Central New York, which
had negotiated collective-bargaining agreements with Local
1358, the current contract being for 1977-80 (G.C. Exh. 2).
Chief Managing Officer Bruce Haskell testified that
Ralph J. Haskell, Inc., went out of business after June 30,
1978. At the time of trial, Superintendent Greg Haskell,
Foreman Craven, and employee Van Dyke testified to
being then employed by other companies.
B. Local 7 Interfeence With the Vestal Job
The Haskell company started the Vestal job in early
March 1978, possibly the end of February, said Superinten-
dent Greg Haskell.
Foreman Bill Craven testified that he arrived on the job
for the first time in the early morning of March 8 in a
company truck with employee Howard Van Dyke. He and
Van Dyke testified that they observed other people in a car
and truck at the site, later identified as Local 7 Representa-
n e r c was some vague reference, principally by union representative (for
Loal 7) Michael Lovaglia, to work having been done by the Haskelk
th- an unidentified company that employed nonunion labor, but the
allegation was not esubliled by the Union or confinned by the Haskells.
tive and President Michael (Mickey) Lovaglia and two
members of Local 7, Nick Silvestri and Don Rossman.
According to Foreman Craven and employee Van Dyke,
Local 7 representative Lovaglia approached them and
talked to Craven before he and employee Van Dyke could
start any work. After introducing himself and inquiring
what they planned to do, Lovaglia asked Craven if he had a
union laborer on the job. Craven answered that Van Dyke
was a union laborer, but Lovaglia responded that Van
Dyke was not from our local, Local 7. Craven replied that
Van Dyke was sent to work here, that was all he knew.
Whereupon Lovaglia told them both they were not to start
any work or he and his men would picket the job.
Foreman Craven sent employee Van Dyke off the site to
telephone the Haskell company office in Elmira, and Van
Dyke learned that Superintendent Greg Haskell was prob-
ably on his way to the Vestal site for a routine supervisory
visit. Haskell arrived soon thereafter and found his two men
not working. Craven told Haskell of Union Representative
Lovaglia's demand that the Haskell company use a laborer
or laborers from Local 7 if the job was to go forward with-
out union picketing.
Superintendent Haskell then talked alone to Union Rep-
resentative Lovaglia? The two, Haskell and Lovaglia, had
talked alone once before at the jobsite, some days prior to
March 8, when Lovaglia came to inquire if Haskell was
going to use Local 7 laborers and Haskell put him off by
saying he did not know. In their conversation on March 8,
according to Haskell, Lovaglia insisted that his Local 7 la-
borers had to do the plank shoring, that others were not to
touch the planks, and if they did, he (Lovaglia) would set
up pickets. Haskell replied that he had Howard Van Dyke,
a laborer he wanted to use, and that he would put one of
Lovaglia's men on if Howard Van Dyke stayed; to which
Lovaglia answered, whether it was one man or twenty men
it was going to be Local 7 men or he would picket. Haskell
offered to make it two Local 7 men plus Van Dyke, pro-
vided that as the work tapered off the two Local 7 men
would be laid off before Van Dyke. Again Lovaglia insisted
that the laborers had to be Local 7 members and that How-
ard Van Dyke was not going to work there because he was
from the wrong local. Lovaglia reiterated that if Haskell
used his own laborer, Lovaglia would picket.
At this point, according to Superintendent Haskell, he
told union representative Lovaglia that the Haskell com-
pany did not need a picket, it had a load of pipe coming on
the job from Ohio, and did not want the confusion of a
driver not crossing the picket line or his own men not cross-
ing the picket line. Hence, said Haskell, he was shutting the
job down and was going back to the office to discuss the
situation with his boss and would get back to Lovaglia.
Union representative Lovaglia admitted that he threat-
ened picketing, but claimed it was in response to Superin-
Foreman Craven and employe Van Dyke admitted they &d not hear
the conversation; union members Silvestri and Raurman claimed that they
heard part but on cross-examination admitted not hearing or remembering
much of the conversation. Indeed, Rorsman conceded that he walked around
as the two principals lalked and at the same time engaged in separate con-
versation with Silvestri. In the circumstancq their testimony provided noth-
ing that was meaningfully corroborative on either side of the conversation of
the two prinerpals.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tendent Haskell's suggestion that he might do the work with
nonunion labor. However, there was nothing of the sort
mentioned in connection with Lovaglia's immediately prior
threat of picketing to Foreman Craven and employee Van
Dyke, or any indication of such suggestion in Haskell's tes-
timony, and I do not credit Lovaglia's claim.
Union representative Lovaglia further claimed that in his
discussion with Superintendent Haskell he was only insist-
ing on compliance with the terms of an alleged existing
union contract between Local 7 and the Haskell company,
which provided for priority in hiring of Local 7 laborers in
the Binghamton area. However, that Lovaglia knew at the
time that such a contract did not exist, and entertained no
belief that one existed, was demonstrated by his contempo-
raneous conduct in demanding and obtaining a union con-
tract from the Haskell company following its capitulation
to his demand for the removal of employee Van Dyke and
hiring replacements from Local 7 (see heading C, infra).
Hence 1 do not credit Lovaglia's further claim.
C. The Haskell Company Capitulates
Superintendent Greg Haskell, after temporarily closing
down the Vestal job on March 8, 1978, consulted with Chief
Managing Officer Bruce Haskell, and, as both testified, in
order to avoid trouble they decided to comply with the
Union's demands. Local 7 was asked to send out two of its
laborers to the Vestal job, the work resumed, and employee
Howard Van Dyke was discharged or laid o f . Van Dyke
was paid for March 8 and was given two additional half-
day's work in connection with the Vestal job, the first on
Friday, March 10, when he substituted for 4 hours as fore-
man for Bill Craven, and the second on Monday, March 13,
when he delivered to the Vestal site a load of boards from
Elmira.
About 7 weeks later, by letter from the Union dated
April 24, 1978 (Resp. Exh. R-7) the Haskell company was
notified that the Union was withdrawing any objection to
Van Dyke's employment as a laborer on the Vestal job
(without the Union admitting commission of an unfair la-
bor practice). As a result, approximately 8 weeks after his
discharge or layof, Van Dyke was recalled to the job by
Superintendent Haskell and worked on the job until com-
pletion of the Haskell company work.
On Monday, March 13, while delivering the boards to
the Vestal job, Van Dyke was accosted by union represent-
ative Lovaglia, who asked for Superintendent Haskell and
was told he would be coming to the job. Lovaglia decided
not to wait and handed Van Dyke a form of book contract,
telling him that Haskell had not signed a contract with the
Union and that V;n Dyke was to give the contract to Has-
kell to sign and return to the Union, or his men would not
work on Tuesday.
Superintendent Haskell testified that he received the
form contract and message of Lovaglia from employee Van
Dyke but laid the contract aside, probably at the office; but
that one of the two Local 7 laborers on the job (Nick Siives-
tri or Don Rossman) came to him about 2 weeks after the
events of March 8 (approximately March 22) with another
copy of the form contract and told him that Lovaglia had
said he had to sign and if he did not the laborers were not to
work. Haskell testified that he signed. Nick Silvestri said it
was he who obtained the signed contract and brought it to
the union office.
The contract that Superintendent Haskell signed on
March 22, 1978 (Resp. Exh. R-I), comprising a book con-
tract and separate signature page, was a collective-bargain-
ing contract for the period April 1, 1976 through March 31,
1979, between the Associated General Contractors, on be-
half of the employer members, and 20 New York locals,
including Local 7, of the Laborers Union, each local with a
specified area of jurisdiction in parts of New York. Haskell
signed as a nonassociation employer.
D. The Union's Defense
The Union claims that it had a prior collective-bargain-
ing contract with the Haskell company. which was the
predecessor contract to the above described 1976-79 con-
tract, namely, the 1974-76 book contract between Associ-
ated General Contractors and the 20 Laborers Union locals
which, a t Local 7's behest, the Haskell company allegedly
signed as a nonassociation employer in 1975 when it
worked as subcontractor on a job in Waverly, New York.
The Union contends that the 1974-76 contract continued in
existence, as far as the Haskell company was concerned,
beyond the expiration date of March 3 1, 1976, on a calen-
dar year-to-year basis, absent written notice of change by
either party upon the other on January 30, 1976, or any
year thereafter. This latter continuation language and the
argument are derived from the duration and termination
article XXV of the 1974-76 book contract (see page 47.
Rejected Resp. Exh. R-3).4 Hence, says the Union, in
threatening to picket the Haskell company the Union was
doing what it had a right to do under its contract when, in
March 1978, Haskell ignored at Vestal lawful5 priority in
employment provisions for Local 7 area members under the
1974-76 contract.
There were two problems with the Union's defense. The
first was whether the Haskell company had actually sub-
scribed to, rather than merely complied with, the 1974-76
Associated General Contractors-Laborers Union contract
in connection with the Waverly job subcontract in 1975.
The second was whether the 1974-76 contract survived be-
yond March 3 1, 1976, when it was replaced by the 1976-79
contract efective April 1, 1976.
The Union had not signed the 1974-76 contract with the
Haskell company in the union files. At trial the Union of-
fered only an unsigned book form of the contract (rejected
Resp. Exh. R-3) which, to have been properly executed by a
representative of the Haskell company, would have been
The art~cle reads:
Article XXV-Duration and Termination It is agreed by both parties
that all the conditions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect from April 1 , 1974 to March 31, 1976 and during each calendar
year thereafter, unless on or before the 30th day of January 1976, or any
year thereafter, written notice of change of this Agreement be sewed by
either party upon the other party.
Lawful under Sec. 8(f) of the Act, Loco1 357, International Brorherhood of
Teamtters, Chaufleurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of America [ b s Angeles-
Searle Motor Express] v . N.LR.B., 365 U.S. 667, 673-677 (1961); lnrerstote
Electric Company. 227 NLRB 1996. 1997-98 (1977).
LABORERS LOCAL UNION NO. 7 319
signed by the representative on pages 55-56 (or on separate
equivalent attached pages) entitled "Non-Association Em-
ployer-Non-Association Employer Must Sign the Follow-
ing." Some years prior, the Haskell wmpany had ceased to
be a member of Associated General Contractors, the em-
ployer bargaining association, according to Principal Man-
aging Officer Bruce Haskell.
Supplementing the unexecuted form of the 1974-76 con-
tract, the Union offered the testimony of Harry Wickham,
who had been a subcontractor employee and steward for
Local 7 on the Waverly job. He testified he saw Ralph Has-
kell, father of Superintendent Greg Haskell, sign a docu-
ment brought to Ralph Haskell by Jim Converse, labor
steward for another Elmira employer and subcontractor on
the Waverly job, that purported to be a copy of the 1974-76
book wntract between Associated General Contractors and
the Laborers Union. Converse did not testify. Union repre-
sentative Lovaglia claimed that Converse brought in a
signed copy of the wntract that appeared to be signed by
Ralph HaskeIl, but testified that the Union did not have
any such signed copy. In their earlier testimony neither
Bruce Haskell nor Greg Haskell could identify the unsigned
copy (R-3 for identification) as the facsimile of the contract
(Greg Haskell said the cover was something like the cover
of the contract of which he had been aware); however, both
men agreed that the Haskell company had complied with
the terms of a union wntract in its performance at Wa-
verly. I rejected the unexecuted, unsigned contract form as
evidence of a contract between the Haskell wmpany and
the Union, and it became rejected Respondent's Exhibit R-
3.
If the Haskell company did not sign the 1974-76 contract
but merely complied with certain terms, such as paying the
wages and benefits and observing the hiring preferences
prescribed while it performed the Waverly job, there was no
contract obligation that continued simply as a result of that
performance.
However, assuming that the Haskell company had bound
itself as a signatory nonassociation employer to the Associ-
ated General Contractors-Laborers Union contract of
1974-76, the fact is that that contract was superseded by
the 1976-79 contract (Resp. Exh. R-I), and the 1974-76
wntract expired on March 31, 1976. As a signatory, the
nonassociation employer agreed (see signature page 55,
paragraph I, of rejected Resp. Exh., R-3) to be bound to the
"collective bargaining Agreement, dated April 1, 1974 and
. . . each and all of the terms, conditions and provisions
thereof and . . . the interpretations and enforcement of the
Agreement." He did not agree to be bound by any succeed-
ing agreements or by any modifications of the 1974-76
agreement (as is sometimes provided in multiemployer as-
sociation contracts that allow for adherence by nonassoci-
ation employers6). The provision in article XXV of the con-
* See, for example, Ted Hicks and Assmiam. Inc.. 232 NLRB 712 (1977).
whm the signatoty nonapsocialion m e m h agreed, in hb signatory memw
durn to tbe 1974-76 agreement between the association and the union, to
be bound by any modihcatioas exteasions or renewals of the agreement,
and was held bound to the s d g 1976-78 agreement negotiated by tbe
association and the union. upon failure to give timely notice of withdrawal
from his signatory memorandum. The care at bar is the oppor~te of the Ted
tract (see fn. 4, supra) for extending it on a year-to-year
basis related to the 1974-76 contract as written, and not as
modified by a later contract that replaced it.
Indeed, to hold otherwise, and that the 1974-76 contract
had continued between the Union and a nonassociation
member, such as the Haskell company, after the old con-
tract had been replaced between the association members
and the Union by the more costly (in wages and benefits)
1976-79 contract, would have been contrary to the intent of
the principals who negotiated both contracts. Neither the
employer association nor the Union intended to provide the
nonassociation emolovers with a comoetitive advantage in
lower wage and denifit costs than a'ssociation employers
were obliged to incur, or to aid the nonassociation employ-
ers in continuing to pay lower wages and benefits to the
union members under the old contract than were paid by
the association employers under the new and current con-
tract. For that very reason, the Union pressured the Haskell
wmpany into signing the 1976-79 contract an March 22,
1978, after the Union had earlier succeeded in forcing the
discharge or layoff of Howard Van Dyke and the hiring of
Local 7 members.
Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(l)(A) Findings
The Union's defense was without merit. In early March
1978, when the Haskell company embarked on its subcon-
tracting job in Vestal, New York, the Union was not party
to any collective-bargaining wntract with Local 7 and was
not obligated by any lawful wntract to give priority in hir-
ing to laborers who were Local 7 members.
When on March 8, 1978, Union Local 7, by its Repre-
sentative Lovaglia, threatened that it would picket the Has-
kell company job at Vestal unless the wmpany discharged
employee Van Dyke (member of a sister local) and replaced
him with a member or members of Local 7, and thereby
caused the Haskell company to capitulate and comply with
the demand, Local 7 engaged in conduct violating Section
8(b)(2) and 8@)( IXA) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. International
Union of Operating Engineers, Little Rock, h a l 382-382A,
AFL-CIO (Armco Drainage & Metal Products. Inc.), 279
F.2d 951, 955 (8th Cir. 1960); N.L.R.B. v. Local 1423
United Brotherhood of Caqenfers and Joiners of Americo,
AFL (Columbus Show Care Co.), 238 F.2d 832,837 (5th Cir.
1956), rehearing denied 240 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1957);
N.L.R.B. v. Teamters Local Union 676, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamters. Chaufeurs. warehousemen and
Helpers of America 419 F.2d 1274, 1274-75 (3d. 1969). en-
forcing 172 NLRB 948.7
I . By threatening on March 8. 1978. to picket the job at
Vestal, New York, of employer Ralph J. Haskell, Inc., un-
Hick case and presents the situat~on, commented on by the Board (at 97
LRRM 1501). w h m the signatory nonassociation membcr has signed to be
bound solely by the 1974 agreement.
' Finding a Sec. B(aX3) violation is not a prerequisite to a Sec. 8@)(2)
finding, it king sui5aent to show tbat the Union caused or attempted to
cause the employer to engage in conduct which if committed would violate
Scc. 8(aX3) of the Act, N.L.R.B. v. Inremriod Union of0pmrfing Engi-
neer~ Lorbl Ne. 12, AFL (Ass~ciared Generat Con~roc~on), 237 F.2d 670,673
(9th Cir. 19%). ccrt. dcaied 353 US. 910.
320 DECISIONS O F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
less the employer discharged its employee Howard Van
Dyke and replaced him with a member or members of
Union Local 7 because Van Dyke was not a member of
Union Local 7, but was a member of a sister local, Union
Local 7 attempted to cause and caused the employer to
discriminate against employee Van Dyke by discharge or
layoff and replacement by Local 7 members. By its con-
duct, Union Local 7 engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
2. By the foregoing conduct Union Local 7 has re-
strained and coerced employee Van Dyke in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby
cngaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
3. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
It will be recommended that Respondent
(I) Cease and desist from its unfair labor practices;
(2) Make employee Howard Van Dyke whole for his loss
)f pay by reason of his discharge or layoff on March 9.
1978, to the date he was restored to the Vestal job. Said
)ackpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the man-
ler set forth in I? W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
1950), approved in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bollling Company
f Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344 (1953), with interest as pre-
icribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 23 1 NLRB 641 (1977)o;
(3) Post the notice provided for herein.9
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
md the entire record, and pursuant to Section Iqc ) of the
Ict, there is hereby issued the following recommended:
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed :hem in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by a lawful contract between the Union
and the employer pursuant to Section 8(a)(3) or 8(f) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make employee Howard Van Dyke whole, in the
manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The
Remedy," for any loss of earnings as a result of his dis-
charge or layoff from the Vestal job on March 9, 1978, until
he was restored to the job.
(b) Post in Respondent Union's business offices and
meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."I1 Immediately upon receipt of said notices, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, the Union
shall cause the copies to be signed by one of its authorized
representatives and posted. The posted copies are to be
maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Union has taken to comply herewith.
I ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
Slates Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
Respondent Union, its officers, agents, and representa-
ives shall:
I . Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause an employer to dis-
harge, layoff. or otherwise discriminate against Howard
'an Dyke, or any other employee or applicant for employ-
nent, because he is not a member of Union Local 7 or
ecause he is a member of a sister union local or because he
as not been cleared or referred by Local 7, except to the
xtent that a lawful contract between the Union and the
mployer permits the preference or priority for Local 7
iem bers.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause any of the foregoing
nlawful discrimination by picketing or strike or by threat
f picketing or strike or by other threats or coercion.
'See. generally. Isu Plumbing d Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Since the employer. Ralph 1. Haskell, Inc., is no longer in business. the
rder will omit making the notice available to the employer for posting.
lo In the event no exceptions are Wed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
ulcs and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findines. RI . ~ ~ ~ - - - - - r.
conclusions. and reeommmdcd 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 purposa.
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause an employer
to discharge, layoff, or otherwise discriminate against
Howard Van Dyke, or any other employee or appli-
cant for employment, because he is not a member of
our Union Local 7 or because he is a member of a
sister union local or because he has not been cleared or
referred by Local 7, except to the extent that a lawful
contract between the Union and the employer permits
the preference or priority for Local 7 members.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any of the
foregoing unlawful discrimination by picketing or
strike or by threat of picketing or strike or by other
threats or coercion.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by a lawful contract between the Union and
the employer pursuant to Section 8(a)(3) or 8(f) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
LABORERS LOCAL UNION NO. 7 32 1
BECAUSE the Board found that we unlawfully caused charge or layoff from the Vestal, New York, job for
the discharge or layoff of employee Howard Van Ralph I. Haskell, Inc., on March 9, 1978, until he was
restored to the job.
Dyke,
WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL UNION
incurred by him with interest from the time of his dls- No. 7, AFL-CIO