Rondicken, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rondicken , Inc. and Harold Cohen
Local 435, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO and Eddie Barnes. Cases
3-CA--4649 and 3-CB-1722
July 10, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 9, 1972, Trial Examiner Lloyd S.
Greenidge issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Union filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Respondent Rondicken, Inc., Girard, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respon-
dent Local 435, Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Rochester, New York, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommend-
ed Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LLOYD S. GREENIDGE, Trial Examiner: This consolidated
proceeding was heard at Buffalo, New York, on December
16, 1971, pursuant to a charge filed in Case 3-CB-1722 by
Eddie Barnes on August 25, 1971, and a charge filed in
Case 3-CA-4649 by Harold Cohen on November 2, 1971.
With respect to Local 435, Laborers International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent
Union or Local 435, the complaint in Case 3-CB-1722
alleges that it violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by attempting
to cause, and causing, Respondent Company to discharge
employee Eddie Barnes, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, in that it requested and caused Barnes' discharge
because he was not a member of Respondent Union at a
time when he was not required under the Act to be a
member of, or to pay dues to, said Union, With respect to
Rondicken, Inc., herein called Respondent Company or
the Company, the complaint in Case 3-CA-4649 alleges
that it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging or laying off Barnes , pursuant to a request
made by Respondent Union because he was not a member
of the Union at a time when he was not required under the
Act to be a member of, or to pay dues and initiation fees
to, said Union.
All parties were duly served by registered mail with
copies of the complaints, order consolidating cases , notice
of hearing, and statement of standard procedures in formal
hearings before the National Labor Relations Board.
Despite the foregoing, no representative for the Respon-
dent Union or the Charging Party in Case 3-CA-4649
appeared at the hearing. At the close of the hearing, the
General Counsel renewed an earlier motion for summary
judgment in Case 3-CB-1722 on the ground that the
Respondent Union had failed to file an answer to the
complaint and did not appear at the hearing to present a
defense to the allegations therein. The Trial Examiner
reserved decision on the motion.
After the hearing in this matter was concluded, Respon-
dent Union filed an answer and the General Counsel
withdrew his motion thus rendering moot a ruling on the
motion. The same day, December 20, Harold Cohen, the
Charging Party in Case 3-CA-4649 and counsel for
Respondent Union, submitted to the Trial Examiner a
request in the form of a motion. In substance the motion
sought to reopen the record to permit Respondent Union
to present "a meritorious defense" and assigned as reasons
therefor the following: Initially, counsel thought the matter
would be heard in Rochester where he maintains an office;
although ill, counsel told the General Counsel, in a
telephone conversation the morning of the hearing, that he
would make the trip to Buffalo and the General Counsel
stated that he would inform the Trial Examiner to this
effect (The Trial Examiner was not so advised.); and
counsel arrived at the Regional Office shortly after the
hearing had terminated.
On December 22, the Trial Examiner issued an order to
show cause why the motion of Respondent Union should
not be granted. No opposition having been received, the
motion was granted; and, on notice to all parties, the Trial
Examiner ordered that the record be reopened for the
purpose of permitting Respondent Union to present its
defense and that the hearing be resumed before him at
Buffalo, New York, on February 10. The General Counsel,
Respondent Union, and Charging Party in Case
3-CA-4649 were represented at the resumed hearing, but
no representative for Respondent Company or the Charg-
ing Party in Case 3-CB-1722 attended the hearing.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses while on the witness stand, and
after due consideration of the briefs of the General
Counsel and Respondent 'Union, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent Company, an Ohio corporation with its
198 NLRB No. 25
RONDICKEN, INC.
principal office in Girard, Ohio, is engaged in the building
and construction industry as a labor subcontractor; and, at
all times material herein, pursuant to a contract valued in
excess of $500,000 with D-K-R Investments, Respondent
Company has assisted in the construction of a shopping
center in Albion, New York, herein called the Albion
shopping center.
During the past year, a representative period, Respon-
dent Company, in performance of its contract with D-K-R,
purchased and received at its New York operations directly
from sources outside the State of New York materials and
supplies valued in excess of $50,000.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find that Respondent
Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaints allege, the answers admit, and I find that
Local 435, Laborers International Union of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act. I find further, as the complaints
allege and the answers also admit, that, at all times
material herein, George E. Gordon and Samuel Thompson,
Respondent Union's business representative and shop
steward, respectively, have been agents of Respondent
Union within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act; and
that Ronald Burdman, president of Respondent Company,
has been an agent of Respondent Company at the Albion
shopping center and a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence'
On an unspecified date, Respondent Company entered
into a contract with D-K-R Investments to perform laborer
work on a project at Albion, New York. This was the
Company's first such venture in western New York.
Construction of the project began about June 1, 1971, and,
as of the date of the hearing, the Company was in the final
stage of completing its work under the contract. In late
May or early June 1971, President Ronald Burdman told
Eddie Barnes and Curtis Rauschenbach, both longtime
employees of Respondent Company and residents of
Youngstown, Ohio, that he desired to have them come to
the Albion job to work as laborers. Barnes was a member
of a sister local of Respondent Union in Warren, Ohio.
Burdman explained at the hearing that he was prepared to
hire additional help in the laborer classification at the
jobsite or through the union hiring hall.
On or about June 1, Burdman telephoned Gordon and,
in the conversation that ensued, told the business agent
that the site would be cleared shortly and advised as to
what he intended to do with regard to the employment of
laborers.
Gordon visited the construction project on Friday, June
4, and had a prejob conference with Burdman. At the
outset, the business agent presented two copies of the
101
Union's proposed contract to Burdman and asked him to
sign them. Burdman accepted the document but, according
to Burdman, stated that he wanted his attorney to examine
it. As Gordon recalled, Burdman merely said that he would
review the contract first to determine what fringe benefit
payments were required and then establish appropriate
records for this purpose. At some point in the conversation,
Burdman told Gordon that one Sadari had applied for
work and asked Gordon what he should do. Gordon
replied "He's from right in town here. Put him to work." So
saying, Sadari was hired by Burdman that day. It was
finally agreed that Rauschenbach would be the laborer
foreman and Samuel Thompson would be the shop
steward on the job.
Barnes started to work for the Company at the Albion
jobsite on June 7. Sometime the same day, or 1 or 2 days
later, Burdman introduced Steward Thompson to Barnes.
At some point in the conversation, Barnes told Thompson
that he had left his union book at home but would bring it
the following week. On several occasions later the same
week, Thompson reminded Burdman that Barnes "wasn't
from the Local" and, consequently, that there was a
question whether Burdman would be able to keep him. In
addition, in the same period, Thompson reported to the
Local that the Company had hired a laborer from out of
the area.
On June 11, Gordon again visited the jobsite and, on this
occasion, held conversations with Burdman and Barnes, In
the beginning, Gordon complained that he had not
received a signed contract from the Company, pointed out
to Burdman contract language with respect to area
residence, and then mentioned the subject of Barnes
working at the site. After this, Gordon announced that "we
have eleven hundred men in our Local that are loafing,
they've got to go to work first." Burdman protested and
related that Barnes was a regular employee of the
Company. Unmoved, Gordon repeated in substance his
earlier remarks, adding "we don't want to have trouble on
the job." He also advised that an election was pending and
that there was pressure on union agents to enforce the
contract. Again, Burdman complained, now saying that he
could not understand why Barnes had to leave, the
demand for his discharge was illegal, and Barnes had the
same right to work as anyone else. Gordon was adamant,
however, and insisted that Burdman "get rid of Barnes."
Burdman refused and told Gordon to relay the message
himself. Barnes was then summoned to the meeting and,
shortly thereafter, Gordon told Barnes, in the presence of
Burdman, "You can't stay. My men are out of work." This
said, Gordon directed the alleged discriminatee to "go
home and don't come back next week." Barnes asked if he
was being "knocked off" the job and Gordon answered
"temporarily you may be." Burdman then inquired if
Barnes could return at a later date. To this, Gordon replied
"Yes, after a couple weeks, after the election and things
cool off...." Amplifying, Gordon reiterated that there
was substantial unemployment in the area, stated that "we
would be crucified [in] the election if a stranger comes in
and takes bread out of the mouths of the people who are
I Unless otherwise indicated, the findings set forth under this section are
based on credited testimony which is either admitted or undisputed.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
waiting right here to go to work . . ." and advised that
"our livelihood depends on supplying these people with
work." In the end, Burdman and Barnes requested a delay
in the latter's departure. Gordon granted the request and
permitted Barnes. to remain until the end of the workday.2
On the way back to Ohio on June It, Burdman told
Barnes it would be futile for him to return to the job
"because its a war" but if he did and was once again
instructed by Gordon to leave, the Company would
provide him with a return ticket to Youngstown. In a
telephone conversation with Burdman on June 13, Barnes
expressed uneasiness about the prospect of returning to the
job and stated that he would "wait and see what
[Burdman] do and if [Gordon] tells me to come
back...." Every weekend, for about 3 weeks after June
11, Burdman asked Gordon, according to the credited
account of the former, if Barnes could return to work.
First, Gordon equivocated and then said "No." For his
part, Barnes made like inquiries of Burdman in the same
period and finally Burdman declared "No, you can't work
up there."
Respondent Union and Building Trades Employers
Association, a Division of the Builders Exchange of
Rochester, New York, Inc., are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement effective from May 1, 1970, to April
30, 1972. On June 16, 1971, Respondent Company, by
memorandum, accepted and agreed to abide by and
enforce the aforesaid agreement. The June 16 memoran-
dum has a space for the signature of a representative of
Respondent Union but the Union did not sign the
memorandum. So far as relevant here, the provisions of the
basic agreement are set forth below:
ARTICLE V
SUPPLY OF LABORERS
. 4. The employer agrees that in providing opportu-
nity for employment it shall give priority to persons
who have had one year or more of service since
January 1, 1969 in the building and construction
industry in the type of work covered by this Agreement
and in the geographic area defined in the Preamble of
this Agreement. -
When` layoffs or cutbacks in employment are
necessary, those persons not entitled to the' above
priority shall be released first.-
The - Employer and the Union agree that the
foregoing priority shall be exercised without regard to
union membership'or non-membership.
Gordon and his slate of candidates were successful in the
election held on June 18 but, from all that appears, the
Union has never withdrawn its objection to the Company's
employment of Barnes at the Albionjobsite.
2 I find the facts with respect to the exit interview from credited
testimony of Burdman and Barnes, as corroborated in part by admissions of
Gordon Testimony of the latter in conflict with the findings is not credited.
Gordon denied that he told Barnes to leave the site and asserted that Barnes
was discharged by Burdman. The denial finds no support in the record and
it is not credited for several reasons After Burdman refused to discharge
B. Conclusions
Under settled authority, absent noncompliance with a
lawful union-security provision, a labor organization
violates Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act when it
attempts to cause or causes an employer to discriminate
against an employee because of his nonmembership in a
labor organization, and an employer violates Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when it yields to coercive
pressure of a labor organization and discharges an
employee for this reason.
As previously shown , Barnes was a member of an out-of-
state local. Shortly after he began to work at the Albion
jobsite, Shop Steward Thompson approached Burdman
and stated that Barnes "wasn't from the Local." A few
days later, Business Representative Gordon told Burdman
that there was substantial unemployment among the
members of "our Local" and they have to go to work first,
and that there was pressure on him to enforce the contract
due to the pendency of a union election and the Company
would have to "get rid of Barnes." Burdman explained that
Barnes was a longtime employee with a legitimate claim to
the work but Gordon cautioned "we don't want to have
trouble on the job." Finally, Gordon told Barnes that he
could not stay and ordered him" to go home and don't
come back next week ." It is true that the words of
discharge were uttered by Gordon but this was only
because Burdman delegated to the Union the Company's
exclusive authority to discharge. The Company thereby
made the Union its agent in this regard and is jointly
responsible with the Union for the results thereof.
Moreover, the discharge action was later ratified by
Burdman when he told Barnes that he could not return to
work.
On these facts, the General Counsel contends that the
Respondents violated the Act because Barnes' discharge
reflected a decision by them to discriminate against him for
the reason that he was not a member of Respondent
Union, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondents were
not contractually obligated to do so. The contentions are
amply supported by the record as made.
I accept the concession of Respondent Union that there
was no written collective -bargaining agreement between
the Union and the Company at any time relevant herein.
Respondent Union argues, however, that at times material
there was in fact an oral agreement between the parties
relating tojob priorities for area residents.
At the outset it is necessary to observe that an agreement
of the sort here in dispute may be in the form of an
arrangement, and that "such an agreement or arrangement
need not be written, but may be established by evidence of
an oral understanding or of a course of conduct in which
both parties mutually assume-concomitant obliga-
tions...." See Hoisting and Portable Engineers, Local 302
(West Coast Steel Works), 144 NLRB 1449, 1452; Local
Union No. 106, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Barnes, Gordon talked to Barnes . According to Gordon , Barnes was "very
receptive" to whatever Gordon told him and asserted he understood "the
procedures" It is admitted Gordon advised Barnes the discharge was
temporary and, following this, granted him an extension of time to depart.
In the light of the admissions, I cannot and do not accept Gordon's denial
of the credited testimony
RONDICKEN, INC.
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Otis Elevator Company), 132
NLRB 1444, 1448.
In support of its position that there was a verbal
understanding with the Company providing for preferen-
tial hiring of area residents, Respondent Union offered
testimony by Gordon to the effect that at the prejob
conference on June 4 Burdman Stated he would abide by
the contract and follow it to the letter. However, Burdman
also stated, again according to Gordon, that he would
study the document. As already reported, Burdman
testified that he told Gordon he would give the contract to
his lawyer for inspection and approval. I have not the
slightest hesitancy in crediting the candid, straightforward,
and plausible testimony of Burdman. By contrast, Cor-
don's credibility was seriously impaired by retractions,
contradictions, and inherent inconsistencies . Thus, for one
thing, in a pretrial statement Gordon averred that on the
day of the discharge he "appeared on the job to police the
signed contract which had been received by the local
union...." At the hearing, he testified that he had not
received a signed contract as of that date. For another, it
stretches credulity too far to believe that Burdman would
agree to be bound by a document he had not studied. For
still another, notwithstanding the alleged agreement,
Burdman transported Barnes to the jobsite the workday
following the prejob conference. And finally, the Company
refused to acknowledge the existence of any agreement as a
basis for discharging Barnes and succumbed to the Union's
demand only because of a threat of coercive pressure
evidenced by Gordon's warning to Burdman that "we
don't want to have trouble on the job." In view of the
foregoing, as well as demeanor, I do not regard Gordon's
testimony in conflict with the credited account of Burdman
to be reliable, and I do not credit him.
Thus, I find that at the time Barnes was discharged there
was no contract, arrangement, or course of conduct which
would establish a lawful preferential hiring agreement
between the parties on the basis of area residence. See
International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, Local #300, AFL-CIO (Martin Bros.),
123 NLRB 1231, 1235, enforcement denied 287 F.2d 605
(C.A. 9). The Company's conduct in hiring Sadari, a local
man, and Thompson, designated shop steward, was merely
a bow to business realties . International Hod Carriers, Local
#300 (Martin Bros.), supra. Under all the circumstances, I
deem it ' unnecessary to decide whether the memorandum
signed by the Company on June 16, assuming contrary to
the evidence that it was executed by the Union at that time,
must be held to have retroactive effect because it was in
fact signed after Barnes was discharged.
It comes at last to this, the evidence warrants the
conclusion that in demanding Barnes' discharge Respon-
dent Union was not motivated by any desire to enforce a
3 See Norman Fromme, d/b/a Norman Fromme Masonry Contractor, 183
NLRB No. 83; Ferro v. Railway Express Agency, 296 F1d 847, 851 (CA
2), Truck Divers and Helpers, Local Union 568, IBT (Red Ball Motor Freight
v. N. I. R B 379 F 2d 137, 142 (C.A D C ); distinguish Bricklayers, Masons
and Plasterers' International Union of America, (Plaza Builders, Incorporated),
134 NLRB 751, 753, 754, and Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers'
International Union of America, Local No 1, AFL-CIO (Wilputte Coke Oven
Division, Allied Chemical Corporation), 135 NLRB 323, 324. In Plaza
Builders and Wilputte Coke Oven, the discharge or layoff of employees was
103
right under an agreement-there was no agreement with
the Company at any time pertinent-but instead was solely
motivated by the fact that many of the Local members
were out of work and a union election was pending and by
the fact that it wanted one of its unemployed members to
replace Barnes because he was an out-of-town man and it
was politically expedient to do so.3 It follows that
Respondent Union 's insistence on the discharge of Barnes
necessarily encourages his membership in the Umon and
discourages his membership in the out-of-town local.
Accordingly, I find that by its conduct Respondent
Company engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act and, by
causing the Company to engage in such unlawful conduct,
the Respondent Union engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(2) and (1)(A) of the
Act. e
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent Company set forth in
section III, above , have a close , intimate , and substantial
relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Eddie Barnes on June 11, 1971,
because of his nonmembership in Respondent Union,
Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By causing the Respondent Company to discharge
Eddie Barnes on June 11 in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act, Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Eddie Barnes was deprived of
employment after June I1 which he otherwise would have
had, I shall recommend that Respondent Company offer
him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job; or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
motivated by a desire to enforce the' objective criterion" of area residence
Nonmembership in the local of the area was not a causative factor.
Distinguish also International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, Local 7, AFL-CIO (Yonkers Contracting Co, Inc), 135
NLRB 865, 866-867; New York Typographical Union, Number Six,
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (Lawrence F. Cafero), 144
NLRB 1555, 1556-59, enfd. 336 F 2d 115 (C.A 2); General Drivers and
Helpers Local Union No 229, affiliated with IBT (Associated Transport, Inc),
185 NLRB No. 84.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges. I shall also recommend that Respondent
Union notify Respondent Company, in writing, with a
copy to Eddie Barnes, that it will not object to Barnes'
employment in the future because of his nonmembership
in Respondent Union.
I shall further recommend that the Respondents, jointly
and severally, make Eddie Barnes whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him. Loss of pay shall be determined in accordance
with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, including interest thereon at 6 percent per
annum in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed, I shall also recommend that the Respondents
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following: 4
ORDER
A. Respondent Company, Rondicken , Inc., Girard,
Ohio , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees , in compliance with a union
demand or for any other reason , on the basis of their
nonmembership in a union.
(b) Encouraging membership in Local 435, Laborers
International Union of North America , AFL-CIO, by
discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees
for not being members of Local 435 or any other union.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Eddie Barnes immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Notify the above-named employee, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his
right to full reinstatement , upon application , in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Jointly and severally with the above -named Respon-
dent Union , and in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy," make Eddie Barnes
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by, reason
of the discrimination against him.
(d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
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.
S In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(e) Post at its place of business at Girard, Ohio, and at its
jobsite at Albion, New York, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A."5 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent Company, shall be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Company
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (e) above, and as soon as they are
forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent
Union's attached notice marked "Appendix B."
(g) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A" for posting by
Respondent Union in all its business offices, meeting halls,
and places where notices to its members are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent Company, be
returned forthwith to the Regional director for disposition
by him.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent Company has taken to comply
herewith .6
B. Respondent Union, Local 435, Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Rondicken, Inc., or
any other employer, to discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees in any way because of their nonmem-
bership in Respondent Union.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in their exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with the above-named Respon-
dent Company and in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy" make Eddie Barnes
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him.
(b) Notify Rondicken, Inc., in writing, with a copy to
Eddie Barnes, that Respondent Union has no objection to
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
6 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Company has taken to
comply herewith "
RONDICKEN, INC.
the employment of Barnes by Respondent Company in the
future.
(c) Post in conspicuous places in all of Respondent
Union's business offices, meeting halls, and places where
notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B." 7 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 3, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent Union, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same place and under the same conditions
as set forth in (c) above, and as soon as forwarded by the
Regional Director, copies of Respondent Company's
attached notice marked "Appendix A."
(e) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B" for posting by
Respondent Company at its place of business in Girard,
Ohio, in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted, and at its jobsite at Albion, New York. Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director,
shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of Respondent Union, be returned forthwith to the
Regional Director for disposition by him.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith.8
I In the event that the Board's 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 be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
8 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read-
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer Eddie Barnes immediate and full
reinstatement to his formerjob or, if thatjob no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees on compliance
with a union demand or for any other reason, on the
basis of their nonmembership in a union.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 435,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, by discriminating against any employee for
not being a member of the aforenamed labor union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
105
WE WILL pay, jointly and severally with Local 435,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, to Eddie Barnes the earnings which he lost
as a result of our discrimination against him , plus 6-
percent interest.
WE WILL notify the above-named employee, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of his right to full reinstatement , upon applica-
tion, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and
the Universal Military Training Act, as amended after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
Dated By
RONDICKEN, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, The
Federal Building, 9th Floor, Ill West Huron Street,
Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Rondicken,
Inc., or any other employer, to discharge or otherwise
discriminate against employees on the basis of their
nonmembership in our Local.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL notify Rondicken, Inc., in writing, with a
copy to Eddie Barnes , that we have no objection to
Barnes' employment by Rondicken, Inc., in the future.
WE WILL pay, jointly and severally with Rondicken,
Inc., to Eddie Barnes the earning which he lost as a
result of our discrimination against him, plus 6-percent
interest.
LOCAL 435 LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, The
or covered by any other material . Federal Building , 9th Floor, 111 West Huron Street,
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100.