Stage Employees IATSE Local 7

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

arrd Willy
Rogw Willis
Par1
Allgust
proceedi,~g.
Clecision
findings,=
thi~t 8(b)(2)
Rogl:r Willis
Stuclios,
was
Willis
the
-
' hearing,
Inc.. Pal "Un~versal Stud~os, Inc..
Inter?st." captlon as Administrat~ve
neglect1:d
' ~ndent
Administr~tivc ib establt~hed
a(1ministrative
tt'e
Srandard Producrs.
Inc.. NLRI3 544 F.2d 362 (3d
furma,
lindlng Sec. 8(b)(2)
callsing la~d
5. insteac
vfe
Hofme~ster tel(:phoned
Adminibtr,~tive
Willis con<:erning Oc~ober
wer': week btarting 30
Octo-
w ~ t h Willis, fl~llowed
t.ie attempted
Admlnistrat~ve neglected
testtmony Willis, Hofmei5ter
Juc Sec. R(h)(l )(A).
" m a t .No. 95. Sheel Meral Inrernahona/ Associa~ron. A F L - C / O
Colon. Inc.). (1976):
Laboretr' No. /he Labarea In~ernarional
Americ,a J. Inc.), 16
(1975); Unired ~Is.rmia/ron Journqmcn Apprenricer rhc
Willis
Respondent's
eslab-
lishes Willis
Willis
p.m.
calls.4 All
job-
Willis
Willis
Willis
jobsite.
jobsite
Willis
Hof-
Willis
jobsite.
Willis
jobsite
Hofrneis-
Willis
Pipefirring Induory /he Unired Srales and
is. M McCulloch d/b/u McCulloch I59 1 1
1 ( 1966): Hoi.\/irrg and Porrublc Engrnecrr. / Wcsr C w o Sreel
Work.<), 144 Inlemolronal
Brorherhood Teamsrers. Chuufleua. Helpers
[Los An~el[,r-.Gu//le Moror Express] N. B.,
Willis testtfied oflice wa\
tlme,
1139 IATSE. LOCAL 7
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employ-
ees, Local No. 7 Hofmeister and
and Universal City Studios, Inc.,
y in Interest.' Case 27-CB-1267
March 5, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On 25, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Jay R. Pollack issued the attached Decision in this
Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has-considered the record and the at-
tached in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to acopt his recommended Order.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, he Respondent violated Section
by refusing to refer employees Willie Hofmeister
and for employment with Universal
City Inc. (hereinafter Universal), on Octo-
ber 27, 1978. The Respondent contends that its
action a lawful attempt to enforce its exclusive
hiring hall procedures which, it alleges, were cir-
cumvented by and Hofmeister. We find no
merit in t his contention.
It has long been held that a union may lawfully
prevent circumvention of a legitimate exclusive
hiring Here, however, there is no evidence
At the the General Counsel made a motion, with no objec-
tion being taken. to amend the caption which read "Universal City Stu-
dios, ty to the Contract" to read City
Party in We so amend the the Law
Judge to do so.
The Resp has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Law Judge. It the Board's policy not to
overrule an law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless clear preponderance of all of the rrlevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Dry Wall
91 (1950). enfd. 188 Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In the abserce of exceptions, we adopt. pro the Adrninistrative
Law Judge's that the Respondent did not violate of
the Act by employee Willie Hofmeister to be off on October
1978. of employee Mike Cannon.
The Administrative Law Judge's Decision contained three minor
errors which here note. Construction Foreman Pete Ivy testified that
him on October 26, not October 25 as stated by
the Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge also
stated that the Respondent was unable to contact employees Hofmeister
and referrals after 30. 1978. However. the Re-
spondent's bus ness agent. James Taylor, testified without contradiction
that there no other orders the October and that
when the Respondent received the Board charge 3 days after the
her 30 meeting Hofmeister and employee Roger he
the advice of Respondent's counsel and no longer to refer
those two employees. Finally, the Law Judge
to mention that according to the credited of
was also present when Baker made those statements which the Adminis-
trative Law ge found in violation of
Workers
(Ronald M. 222 NLRB 756. 758 see Consrrucrion and
General Local Union 596 of Union
of Norrh (Leo Hood Mason Conrracrors. 2 NLRB 778
of and of Plumbing
that Hofmeister and circumvented, or at-
tempted to circumvent, the hiring
hall procedures. On the contrary, the record
that Hofmeister and made a good-faith
and continuous effort to obtain referral through the
hiring hall. Thus, they attempted to contact the
Respondent's business agent, James Taylor, on Oc-
tober 26, 1978, before they made any contact with
Universal. Failing to reach Taylor, they contacted
Universal's construction foreman, Pete Ivy, to ask
if any work were available. Ivy told them that
there was work for them, and that they should
contact Taylor and ask to be referred to the job.
Hofmeister and then repeatedly tried to
reach Taylor throughout that day, leaving several
messages, including one at 9 at Taylor's home
to return their telephone their efforts
failed. Thus, on October 27, they went to the
site with Ivy. Union Steward Dennis Baker then
approached them and told them that they could
not work until a clearance had been obtained from
Taylor. Hofmeister and waited 2 hours until
Baker was able to reach Taylor. Baker told them,
however, that Taylor refused to grant them clear-
ance. Hofmeister and then left.
The record therefore reveals that Hofmeister and
made repeated attempts to contact the Re-
spondent's business agent, Taylor, before they went
to the Universal Further, when told by
Union Steward Baker at the that they
would need clearance from Taylor, Hofmeister and
did not attempt to work, but instead waited
2 hours for Baker to reach Taylor. After Baker in-
formed them of Taylor's refusal of clearance,
meister and again made no attempt to work
and left the In these circumstances, the ap-
pearance of Hofmeister and at the Universal
prior to receiving a referral from the Re-
spondent cannot be viewed as a circumvention of
the Respondent's hiring hall procedures.
In addition, there is no evidence that the hiring
of the two employees would have disrupted the
usual determination of the referral of employees.
Rather, there is evidence that under the hiring hall
procedure Universal was generally provided with
those specific employees it requested if available,
that Universal had specifically requested
ter and the week of October 27, and that
Universal, via Ivy, had expressed its willingness to
and of Canada. Local Union 469
Plumbing Company). NLRB 19,
I I2 Local 302
NLRB 1449, 1452 (1963); see also Local 357.
of Warehousemen and of Amer-
ica v. L.R. 365 U.S. 667 (1961).
without contradiction that the Respondent's
"closed half the you can't get in touch with them at the office."
254 NLRB No. 154
114C
em1)loyees
P,ccordingly,
L a w
Willis
wa:, regula-
Sec-
tior1 8(b)(2)
10(c)
Ortler
Denver, repre-
sen:atives,
Ice
L a w
A n
A f t x opportu-
nit]
Acl,
not]
WILL
1nc.-
~11 .1 .
Willy
Willis
Willis,
8(b)(l)(A)
Willis
2(2), (6),
'
allegatton
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hire them on October 27 with no affect on those
already referred.
w e agree with the Administrative
Judge's conclusion that the Respondent's
action in refusing t o refer Hofmeister and
not necessary to enforce its hiring hall
t iors and served no other legitimate union purpose.
We , therefore, find the Respondent violated
of the Act.
O R D E R
F'ursuant to Section of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
of the Administrative Law Judge and
her-by orders that the Respondent, International
All lance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local No.
7, Colorado, its officers, agents, and
shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, except that the attached
not is substituted for that of the Administrative
Judge.
A P P E N D I X
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Agency of the United States Government
a hearing at which all sides had an
to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board has found that
w e have violated the National Labor Relations
as amended, and has ordered us to post this
ce.
T h e Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
T o form, join, o r assist any union
To bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining o r other
mutual aid o r protection
To refrain from the exercise of any o r all
such activities.
WE W IL L NOT cause o r attempt to cause
Universal City Studios, Inc., not to employ
certain employees in order to encourage mem-
bership in the Union o r for other arbitrary, in-
vidious, o r irrelevant reasons.
WE NOT tell employees that they will
never work for Universal City Studios,
an employer with whom w e have an exclusive
job referral arrangement.
W E NOT in any like o r related manner
restrain o r coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
W E W IL L make Hofmeister and Roger
whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of our refusal to allow
Universal City Studios, Inc., t o employ them
on October 27, 1978, plus interest.
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE-
ATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
No. 7
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J AY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Denver, Colorado, on June
26, 1980. The charge was filed by Willy Hofmeister and
Roger individuals, and served on International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local No. 7,
herein called Respondent or the Union, on October 30,
1978. The complaint which issued on January 15, 1979,
alleges that Respondent violated Section and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act. The principal issues herein are
whether Respondent unlawfully caused Universal City
Studios to lay off Hofmeister on October 5, 1978, and
whether Respondent unlawfully refused to allow Univer-
sal to hire Hofmeister and on October 27, 1978.'
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon consideration of
the post-hearing briefs filed on behalf of the parties I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT A N D CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
Universal is now, and at all times material herein has
been, a Delaware corporation doing business at various
locations throughout the United States, with its principal
office and place of business in Universal City, California,
where it is engaged in motion picture and television pro-
duction. Universal, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations, annually sells and ships goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points and
places located outside the State of California.
The parties stipulated and I find that Universal is, and
at all times material herein has been, an employer en-
gaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section and (7) of the
Act.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent discriminated in the op-
eration of an exclusive hiring hall by giving preference to union members
over nonmembers. However, no evidence was offered in support of this
and, therefore. I recommend that tuch allegation be dismissed.
IATSE.
11.
Res~londent
2(5)
111.
Respondent
pal,ty
wheneve-
area
clf
t:mployees.
agent,2 who
Respond1:nt.
sourze
1978,3
from
employec!~
employec:~ Willis
whzn
Willy
Dennis
11)
employet :~
union
Calmon
which
Accortling red it,^
dat4:s
' iml~ressed
Funher, Iv!f
li tely
not.5
Hofmeis-
off.=
Willis
8(b)(2)
BUN Co.]
Inc.,
Hickham-Uhr
Willis
LABOR ORGANIZATION
The ccmplaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that is, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
of the Act.
T H E ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Universal has been party to a series of collective-bar-
gaining agreements with the International Alliance of
Threatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) and certain of its
affiliated local unions in Los Angeles County, California.
is a local union chartered by IATSE but is
not a to the agreement with Universal. However,
Universal performs work outside the geo-
graphic covered by this agreement, it procures its
employets by contacting the local IATSE union in
whose jurisdiction the work is being performed. An ad-
dendum to the bargaining agreement sets the pay and
benefits the employees so employed.
In early 1978, Universal began production of the tele-
vision movie "Centennial" in Colorado. Pursuant to a
suggestion from Joseph Bernsy, an IATSE representa-
tive, Bill Hiney, Universal's construction coordinator,
contactetl the Fort Collins, Colorado, local of IATSE to
request Shortly thereafter, Hiney was con-
tacted by James Taylor, then Respondent's business
told Hiney that Universal's production in
Orchard, Colorado, was in the geographic jurisdiction of
Thereafter, Respondent became the exclu-
sive of Universal's stage hands for the production
at Orcha-d. During the summer of Respondent re-
ferred to Universal in excess of 75 employees for work at
the Orchard location.
Universal's work force at the Orchard location fluctu-
ated a high of about 75 employees to a layoff of all
in early October and a rehiring of over 20
in late October. Hofmeister and were
referred to Universal in August and were both working
there the layoff of October 5 took place.
The Layoff of Hofmeister
In early October, Universal's crew had been steadily
decreasing. Pete Ivy, Universal's construction foreman,
gave Baker, then union steward, a list of approxi-
mately employees to be laid off on October 5 and 5
to be retained by the Company. James
Taylor, business agent, who had been attempting
to find jobs for the soon-to-be laid-off employees, re-
quested that Ivy lay off Hofmeister instead of employee
Mike on the ground that Hofmeister could be re-
ferred to a job for the city and county of Denver, a job
for Cannon was not eligible.
to the testimony of Ivy, which I he
was told by Taylor that the Union wanted Cannon re-
During the times material herein James Taylor was business agent
and Dennis Baker was steward for Respondent. At the time of the hear-
ing, Taylor and Baker no longer held those positions with the Union.
All hereafter refer to the year 1978, unless otherwise indicated.
Ivy me as a more credible witness than Taylor or Baker.
is not an interested party in this proceeding and his testimo-
ny is less to be false o r calculated than that of the interested wit-
nesses. On I he other hand, Taylor and Baker exhibited extreme hostility
LOCAL 7 1141
tained and Hofmeister laid off because Hofmeister could
be placed on the Denver job and Cannon could
Ivy told Taylor that he preferred to keep Hofmeister,
whom he rated as a better carpenter than Cannon. After
talking to Hofmeister, who did not want to g o to work
in Denver, Ivy called Taylor and requested that he be
permitted to retain Hofmeister over Cannon. According
to Ivy, Taylor agreed and, therefore, Ivy told
ter that he was to continue to work and told Cannon
that he would be laid
However, the next morning, Baker told Hofmeister
and Ivy that Hofmeister was not to work because he was
laid off and that Cannon would be working instead. Ivy
asked Baker what had happened and Baker replied that
Taylor had changed his mind because Taylor could get
Hofmeister a job in Denver. Hofmeister did not take the
job in Denver but went instead to California with
in order to move their personal belongings to Colorado.
Cannon and the four other employees worked October 5
and were subsequently laid off at the end of the day.
Section of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization to cause or attempt to
cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in
regard to hire o r tenure of employment o r to encourage
or discourage membership in any labor organization.
When a union prevents an employee from being hired or
causes an employee's discharge, it has demonstrated its
influence over the employee and its power to affect his
livelihood in so dramatic a way that the Board and the
courts will presume that the effects of its action is to en-
courage membership on the part of all employees who
have perceived that exercise of power. See Radio Offi-
cers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union [A. H.
Steamship v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17 (1954). But
the presumption may be rebutted, where the facts show
that the union action was necessary to the effective per-
formance of its function of representing its constituency.
See Ryder Truck Lines, 234 NLRB 218 (1978);
Ashley, Co., 210 NLRB 32 (1974); Philadel-
phia Typographical Union No. 2 (Triangle Publications),
189 NLRB 829 (1971).
Respondent's reason for wanting Hofmeister laid off
instead of Cannon was that Hofmeister could be placed
on another job, thereby permitting both employees to
continue working despite the layoff at Universal. Despite
and antagonism towards and Hofmeister. Further, Baker appeared
to be more interested in denyinq all accusations made by the employees
than in relating the facts at issue. Thus, where there are conflicts in their
testimony. I credit Ivy's testimony over that of Taylor. Further, unless
corroborated by credible witnesses, I have not credited any .of Baker's
testimony.
The city and county of Denver had a residency requirement for em-
ployment. However, Hofmeister had previously worked for Denver and
was exempt from the residency requirement. Cannon, on the other hand.
was not eligible to work for Denver because he did not meet the resi-
dency requirement.
Taylor and Baker contend that Ivy had a hearing problem and.
therefore, incorrectly heard what Taylor had said. Baker testified that
after learning of the mistake he left a message on Ivy's motel room door.
Ivy denied ever receiving such a message. Ivy's testimony, which I
credit, was corroborated by that o f Hofmeister. Hofmeister testified that
Ivy and Baker both told him that he could remain on the job. Thus Ivy's
hearing problem does not explain the Union's change of position on this
matter.
14:!
Thus,
ir-
reltmvant
Re!,pondent's
com-
Willis
Willis
we!it
return
be-
lie\ed
on1
7'aylor
for~ner
re fwed .
Willis.
reference.^
Cln
eml)loyees
wol'k
Willis
W h ~ n ap-
proi~ched
lvy-told
em~~loyees Willis
' I'rior
atten'l
l o w
work.B
Willis.
jobsite.
Willis
Willis
10
~ r e d i t e d . ~
Willis
Willis,
jobsite
Willis,
jobsite
Willis
Hof-
Willis.
Willis -
Willis'
Willis
Willis
Willis
h ~ r e testilied
Willis
I DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the effect on Hofmeister's employment relationship, Re-
spondent's action was in furtherance of a legitimate
union objective and necessary to the effective perfor-
mance of its function of representing its constituency.
I find, contrary to the allegations of the complaint,
tha: Respondent's conduct was not motivated by intent
to discriminate to encourage membership in the Union,
nor was Respondent's conduct arbitrary, invidious, or
to the Union's interest. Therefore, I find that
actions did not constitute an unfair labor
practice and recommend that such allegation of the
pla: nt be dismissed.
The Refusal T o Permit Hofmeister and to
Work
After their layoffs on October 5, Hofmeister and
to California and returned to Colorado with their
personal belongings on October 20 or 21. Upon their
to Colorado, the two employees contacted Taylor
and informed him that they were ready to go to work.
Taylor referred both employees to a job in Denver on
Wednesday, October 25. According to Taylor, he
the job would last 3 days. However, the job lasted
y 4 hours on October 25.
was also in communication with Len Price,
corstruction coordinator for Universal. According to
Taylor, Price stated that work would be starting up
again either Wednesday, October 18, Friday, October 20,
o r Friday, October 27. Price gave Taylor a list of 22
employees that Universal would prefer to have
Taylor recorded the names on a sheet of paper
wh ch included the names of Hofmeister and Ivy
testified he had given a list of 22 names to Price, in order
of preference. Ivy further testified that Taylor's list had
the correct employee names but not in the correct order
of
October 23, Price called Taylor and stated that
Universal would need 12 employees. Taylor referred 12
from the list to the Orchard location. In the
late afternoon of October 26, Price called Taylor and re-
quested an additional 10 employees. Taylor said that be-
cause of the short notice he did not know if he could get
the employees on the list. Price answered that it did not
matter at that point and that Taylor should just send 10
employees the next day.
According to Ivy, he was called on Wednesday, Octo-
ber 25, by Hofmeister, who asked if there were any
at Universal for him. Ivy told Hofmeister that he
could hire him and that Hofmeister should call Taylor
and ask to be sent out to the job. Unable to reach
Taylor, Hofmeister and went to see Ivy on Octo-
ber 27. The two employees rode to the job with Ivy.
the employees got to the job they were
by Baker who said they could not work with-
out a clearance from Taylor. Baker and the two
that he would hire Hofmeister and if
to the hearing, Price was subpenaed by counsel for the General
Coursel. Price informed the General Counsel that he was unable to
the hearing and the General Counsel chose to proceed without
Price's testimony. Without Price's testimony, i t is not possible to ascer-
tain the order of names changed in the "translation" from Ivy to
Price to Taylor.
Taylor would "clear them." According to Ivy, Baker re-
turned and said that Taylor would not allow the two em-
ployees to Ivy told the two employees that he
was sorry but he could not hire anybody unless they
went through the Union. Ivy's testimony was corrobo-
rated by Hofmeister and
Baker testified that on October 27 there were two
extra employees on the He called Taylor and
learned that Hofmeister and had not been referred
to the job. Baker testified that he told Ivy that Hofmeis-
ter and were not on the job and asked if Ivy
would add them to the list but that Ivy said he wanted
only more men. Ivy, however, testified that he told
Baker that he could use the two employees and was will-
ing to add them if the Union would approve it. For the
reasons stated above, Ivy's version of these events is
On Monday, October 30, Hofmeister and went
to the Union's offices to see Taylor. According to
the two employees were apologetic and told Taylor that
they were unfamiliar with union procedures and that
they had not known that going to the would
cause such problems. According to Taylor said
that they should seek employment elsewhere. Hofmeister
testified that Taylor said, "You'll never go out on the
without my okay." Hofmeister also testified that
Taylor told the employees that they should seek employ-
ment elsewhere. Hofmeister and then went to the
Regional Office and filed the instant charge.
Taylor, corroborated by Union President David
Clough, denied telling the employees to seek employ-
ment elsewhere. Taylor and Clough both testified that
Taylor said he would call the employees as soon as work
appeared. The Union was later unable to contact
meister and
In general, Hofmeister and were more reliable
witnesses than Taylor. Further, their immediate filing of
the charge is consistent with and buttresses their account
of the October 30 conversation. Thus, I credit Hofmeis-
ter's and testimony regarding the meeting of Oc-
tober 30.
The credible evidence shows that Baker refused to
permit Universal to hire Hofmeister and on Octo-
ber 27 apparently because the two employees went to
the job without prior clearance from the Union. Howev-
er, Universal was willing to hire these two employees in
addition to those sent by the Union. Thus, I find that Re-
spondent's action causing Universal to refuse to hire
Hofmeister and would be presumed to have the
effect of encouraging membership in the Union. Radio
Officers' Union, supra. The Union has not overcome or
rebutted that presumption.
According to Hofmeister, whom I credit, just prior to the conversa-
tion with Ivy, Baker told the employees that they "were not to work on
this job and never would work on this job." did not remember the
substance of the conversation. other than remembering that Baker said
the employees could not work.
Ivy testified that he was instructed by his superiors at Universal not
to anybody without clearance from the Union. He further
that, if the Union would have permitted it , he would have hired both
Hofmeister and in addition to the employees already on the job.
1143
Hofmei:,ter Willis
Willis
givt:n
e rnpl~yrnent . '~
Kor
c3nduct
Relipondent 8(b)(2)
Hofmeia Willis.
Willis
Willis,
Willis
Willis and
Willis
threatened
t iat
As
arl Willis
crc:dible
conversa tion '
8(b)(l)(A)
employe2s
itnd
alia,
threatening
tha~
t (b)(l)(A)
2(5)
2(2), (6),
8(b)(2)
Willy Hofmeis-
Willis
8(b)(l)(A)
jobsite.
2(6)
8(b)(l)(A)
Willis
F. W.
(1950),
(1977),
Isis
10(c)
' O Willis
I '
to
l 2 Sec.
Sec. the
IATSE. LOCAL 7
Respondent defends its conduct on the ground that
and had attempted to circumvent
union hiring procedures and that they were excess em-
ployees. However, whether Baker told Taylor or not,
Baker had learned from Ivy that Universal would add on
Hofmeister and if Taylor would clear them. As
both employees had been on the list of preferred employ-
ees by Price to Taylor there was no reason to
object to their Under these circum-
stances, Respondent has not shown that its actions were
necessary to the enforcement of its hiring hall regula-
tions. has it been shown that Respondent had any
legitimate union purpose for its actions. Thus, Respon-
dent's appears to be arbitrary, invidious, and ir-
relevant to the Union's purposes. Accordingly, I find
that violated Section of the Act on
October 27 by refusing to allow Universal to employ
ter and
The Alleged Threat by Dennis Baker
testified that a few weeks after October 27 he
returned to the Orchard location to pick up a car. Ac-
cording to Dennis Baker said, "Where are you
guys gcing to work now? You sure can never work
here." answered that someday their "paths would
cross."
Baker testified that a couple of days after October 27
Hofmeister returned to the Orchard location.
According to Baker, made a few "smart" remarks
and to "bloody" Baker's head. Baker denied
saying the employees would never work at the job
again and testified that he told them that if they wanted
to work they had to be in "contact with the business
agent." indicated above, Baker impressed me general-
ly as unreliable witness. impressed me as a
more witness than Baker and his version of the
is credited.
Section of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization to restrain or coerce
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act. I find that Baker's statement that
the emp oyees would never work at the job again rein-
forced his unlawful action in preventing their employ-
ment by Universal and could reasonably be expected to
restrain coerce the employees in the exercise of their
rights urder Section 7, including, inter the right to
refrain fiom union activities. Such a statement is particu-
larly where, as here, the Union has an exclu-
sive job referral arrangement with the employer. Thus, I
find Respondent, by Baker's statements, violated
Section of the Act.
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section of the Act.
According to Taylor. Hofmeister and were not referred to
the job because he believed they were working on the job to which he
referred them on October 25.
Moreover, as indicated above. I have found that Baker made a simi-
lar statement to Hofmeisrer on October 27 when informing the employees
that Taylor would not clear them the job.
2. Universal City Studios, Inc., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section and
(7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section of the Act
by refusing to allow Universal to employ
ter and Roger on October 27, 1978.
4. Respondent has violated Section of the
Act by telling employees that they will never work at
Universal's Orchard, Colorado,
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion and (7) of the Act.
6. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged
in other unfair labor practices as alleged. All other alle-
gations of the complaint are dismissed.
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has unlawfully refused
to allow Universal to employ Hofmeister and on
October 27, it is recommended that Respondent make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against them in the
manner set forth in Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 with interest computed in the manner set
forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
and Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB 146 (1980).
See, generally, Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
7 16 (1962).
The usual order that the Union request the Employer
to reinstate the employees is not applicable herein as
Universal ceased work at the Orchard, Colorado, loca-
tion in December 1978.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
The Respondent, International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees, Local No. 7, Denver, Colorado, its of-
ficers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Universal City Stu-
dios, Inc., not to employ certain employees in order to
encourage membership in the Union o r for other arbi-
trary, invidious, o r irrelevant reasons.
(b) Telling employees that they will never work for
Universal-an employer with whom the Union has an
exclusive job-referral arrangement.
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations o f the National Labor Relations Board. the
findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in 102.48 o f 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.
Section
2 . .
Willy Willis
any
ant1
."
Boird
backpay
under
"Appendix."13
-
':
In notlce
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS HOARD
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
7 of the Act.
Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Hofmeister and Roger whole for
loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's discrimination against them in the manner
to the extent set forth in the section herein entitled
"The Remedy
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
o r its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of due
the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its business and hiring hall copies of the at-
tached notice marked Copies of said
In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
Stat-s Court of Appeals, the words the reading "Posted by
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 27, after being duly signed by authorized repre-
sentatives of the Respondent, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, o r covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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."