Teamsters Local Union #519

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 898 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters Local Union #519, affiliated ` with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Rust Engineering Co.) and Jim Isbill . Case 10-
CB-4367
ployment, and thereafter required certain members
and applicants to sign or initial their referral cards
to renew them."
ORDER
30 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND -
BABSON
On 25 April 1985 Administrative Law Judge
William N. Cates issued the attached decision. ,The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.l - -
The National 'Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed : its authority in this proceeding • to -a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,? and
conclusions3 and to adopt the, recommended -Order
as modified.4 1
1.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law
4. -. ' `
"4. The Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of 'the Act beginning on or about 25 Janu-
ary when it orally -changed its established referral
procedures without giving adequate and timely
notice to its members and other applicants for em-
i The Respondent filed a motion requesting an opportunity to be heard
about the propriety of taking judicial notice of findings in another case
The General Counsel filed a response . We deny the motion on the basis
that in adopting the judge's conclusions , we rely solely on the evidence
presented in this proceeding, which fully supports the judge's conclu-
sions
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's' credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Car 1951)-
We,have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
In sec III,B , par I of his decision the judge inadvertently referred to'
,'30 May 1985" rather than "30 April 1985" as'the date terminating the
collective-bargaining agreement - -
We also note that the judge incorrectly stated in sec III,C, par 6 of
his decision that Jerry H Burgess was a 15-year union -member instead of
a 10- or 12-year union member We correct the error
3 The judge's Conclusion of Law 4 states that the Respondent violated
Sec 8(b)(1)(A) by changing its referral procedures and failing adequately
to notify its members and applicants of the change As the judge indicat-
ed earlier , however, in sec III,I of his decision this conduct also violated
Sec 8(b)(2) of the Act We shall modify, Conclusion of Law 4 to correct
this inadvertent error
4 We shall modify the judge's recommended Order to reflect his find-
ing that the Respondent violated Sec 8(b)(1)(A) by refusing to make its
referral records available to its members and applicants for inspection
We shall also modify par 1(c) of the Order to conform more closely
with the finding that the Respondent refused to refer certain members
and applicants to available positions with Rust and other employers in
violation of Sec. 8 (b)(1)(A) and (2)
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended - Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Teamsters Local Union-' #519, affiliated
-with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Knoxville, Tennessee, its officers, agents;. and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1,. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c). , .
"(c) Removing from its referral records, and re-
fusing to refer. Jim Isbill , Ed Cate, Ted L. Porter,
James C . McDade, or- any other-member or appli-
cant for referral to .available positions with Rust or
any other employer, because they failed to comply
with orally instituted and inadequately announced-
changes in the' referral procedures and because
they were union dissidents , associated with union
dissidents , filed unfair labor practice charges, and
threatened to complain - to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board."
2. -Insert the following as paragraph 1(d) and re-
letter 'the subsequent paragraph. -
"(d) Refusing to furnish , upon request , referral
records to its members and applicants for their in-
spection."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX-
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found --
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE- WILL NOT operate our exclusive hiring. hall
in a discriminatory manner. _
' WE WILL -NOT orally change our- referral proce-
dures without giving adequate and timely notice to
all our members and other applicants for referral.
WE WILL NOT remove from our referral records
and refuse to refer Jim Isbill , Ed Cate, Ted L.
Porter, James C. McDade, or any other member or
applicant to available positions with Rust or any
.other employer because. of their failure to comply
with orally instituted and inadequately announced
changes , in the referral procedures and because
276 NLRB No. 94
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING)
they are union dissidents, associate with- union dis-
sidents, file unfair labor, practice charges, and
threaten to complain to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish, on request, re-
ferral records, to our members and applicants for
their inspection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. '
WE WILL operate our exclusive hiring hall in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
WE' WILL refer Jim Isbill, Ed Cate, Ted L.
Porter, James C. McDade, and all other members
or applicants to positions of employment for which
they qualify on. an equal and nondiscriminatory
basis, and WE WILL make them and any other
member or applicant whole for any loss of earnings
resulting from our discrimination against them, less
any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL place our referral records in a public
place at the hiring hall for easy access during a
substantial part of each business day, and WE WILL
freely allow members and applicants for referral to
inspect such records.
WE WILL mail a complete written copy of our
referral procedures to all members and applicants
who have used our hiring hall. since 25 January
1984 at their last known address. -
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #519, AF-
FILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
J. Howard Trimble, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Cecil D. Bransetter, Esq., of Nashville, Tennessee , for the
Respondent.
Jim Isbill, pro se.
- DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This
matter was-heard at Knoxville, Tennessee,' on 14 and 15
January 1985.1 The charge was filed by Jim Isbill, an in-
dividual, on 24 July. The complaint and notice of hear-
ing issued on 21 September, on behalf of the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (Board)
by the Regional Director for Region 10 alleging that
Teamsters Local #519, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (Respondent or the -Union)
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act), by orally'instituting a procedure
whereby it precluded members and other individuals
899
from being listed on its referral list and from referral
unless they individually signed their referral list informa-
tion cards each month, and that Respondent orally insti
tuted this change without notice to its members and
other individuals and in contravention of its established
referral procedures. It is alleged in the complaint that the
orally instituted changes took place about 25 January.
Further, it is alleged' that about 25 January; Respondent
has failed and refused- to make its referral list available to
members and other individuals on request. Finally, it is
alleged that Respondent, pursuant to the orally instituted
changes, has removed from its referral system and there-
after failed and refused to refer members and other indi-
viduals for employment ineluding -Jim Isbill, Ed Cate,
Ted L. Porter, and James-C. McDade to- available posi-
tions with employers including Rust Engineering Com-
pany (Rust) located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Respond-
ent filed a timely answer to the complaint in which it ad-
mitted various allegations in the complaint but denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the Act.
On the entire record made, in this proceeding, includ-
ing my observation of each witness who testified herein
and after due consideration of briefs filed on behalf of
the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
It is admitted that Rust is, a Delaware corporation and
has at all times material herein maintained an office and
place of business at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where it is
engaged in maintenance and repair of the Oak Ridge Na-
tional Laboratory Facility for the United States Depart-
ment of Energy. Rust, during the calendar year preced-
ing issuance of the complaint herein, which is a repre-
sentative -period, purchased .and received at its Oak
Ridge, - Tennessee `facility -goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State
of Tennessee. Accordingly, I find Rust is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. -
II. LABOR -ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges , Respondent admits, and I find,
that it is now and has been at all times -material herein a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. '
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. A Prior Related Judge's Decision -
On 28 November 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Howard I . Grossman issued a decision in the matter of
Teamsters Local Union -#519, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of-Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of -America, Case 10-CB-4238, JD-
(ATL)-90-84, 2 [Teamsters Local 519 (Rust Engineering),
r All dates hereinafter are 1984 unless otherwise indicated . 2 The trial before Judge Grossman was held on 3 and 4 May.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
275 NLRB 433] in which Judge Grossman found Re- -
spondent had violated Section.8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act. by failing and refusing to refer Ted L. Porter for
available employment with various employers including
Rust with whom Respondent had a collective-bargaining
agreement which included an exclusive referral proce-
dure. Judge Grossman issued a broad cease-and-desist
order against Respondent in which he ordered the Union -
to take certain affirmative action including, referring
Porter to-positions for which he was qualified on an
equal and nondiscriminatory basis, and further ordered
the Union not to refuse to refer him because he filed
unfair labor practice charges with _the Board, intraunion
charges, lawsuits, grievances, or engaged in protected
concerted activities or for any other unfair and/or arbi-
trary, reason. Because the parties, both at trial and, in
their posttrial briefs, either- directly or indirectly refer-
enced Judge. Grossman's decision, I shall take-judicial
notice of it and in doing so I specifically, note that his
decision is currently before the Board on appeal.
B. The Hiring Hall Arrangement
The evidence establishes that Respondent and certain
employers, including Rust, are parties to a'collective-bar-
gaining agreement effective from 14 May 1982 until 30
May 1985. The agreement states, with respect to obtain-
ing employees,3 that each of, the employers, including
Rust,
shall call Teamsters Local Union No. 519's office
not later, than forty-eight (48) hours before starting
work so 'competent Teamsters, Teamster Foreman,
and Teamster General Foremen may be secured for
the job.
It is alleged in the complaint and the evidence estab-
lishes that the Union through its membership in the
Knoxville Building and Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO is a party to a -'c'ollective- bargaining agree-
ment (project agreement) with. Rust which.is effective
from 1 October 1983 until 30 September 1988. That
agreement in pertinent part provides at article 6, "Refer-
ral of Employees:" -
Applicants for the various classifications covered
by this agreement required by the Employer on its
projects shall be referred to the Employer by the
Unions. All requests will be made by the project su-
perintendent or his designee. The Employer shall
have the right to reject any applicant referred by
the Unions. . . .
The Union represents that its local unions admin-
ister and control their referrals and it is agreed that
8 The employee classifications covered by the collective -bargaining
agreement are construction and maintenance drivers including drivers uti-
lized to transport personnel or equipment or to operate special equipment
such as ready-mix concrete trucks, tank trucks, or motonzed equipment -
utilized for loading and unloading materials and equipment, warehouse-.:
men and helpers , garage attendants, wash and grease rack employees,
service station attendants, tire and battery servicemen , and batch plant
operators
these referrals will be made in a non-discriminatory
manner and in full compliance with federal, state,
and local laws and regulations which require equal
employment opportunities and non-discrimination.
Referrals shall not be affected in anyway by the
rules, regulations, bylaws, constitutional provisions,
or any other aspect or obligation of Union member-
ship, policies, or requirements. -
In the event the referral facilities retained by the
local Unions do not refer qualified applicants as re-
quested by the Employer within a forty-eight (48)
hour period after such requisition is made by, the
employer (Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays ex-
cluded). the Employer may ,employ applicants from
any source.
Under the Act, a union hiring hall arrangement is a
matter -of negotiation , agreement , or understanding be-
tween the -parties . There is no expressed ban on hiring
hall arrangements in any provision of the Act . Teamsters
Local 357 v. NLRB, 365 U .S. 667 at 674 ( 1961). A refer-
ral hall , such as in the instant case , serves the useful pur-
pose of making a work force available to an employer
without the employer having to expend its own time and
efforts in obtaining and screening applicants for employ-
ment . That referral language set forth in the project
agreement in the instant case which states, "applicants
. . . shall be ' referred to the employer by the unions"
clearly establishes' an exclusive referral system. See
Cement Masons Local 534, 216 NLRB 568 at 569 (1975),
remanded 526 F.2d 1189 (1st Cir.. 1975). The fact that an
employer could , as in the instant case , reject applicants
referred to it by the Union does not preclude a finding of
an exclusive hiring hall arrangement. I am fully persuad-
ed that the referral language set forth above , which was
taken from both of the referenced agreements , does more
than just simply place restrictions on the employers' free-
dom in hiring; it clearly invests the Union with the ex-
clusive right of referral for all employees in the specified
classifications . Accordingly , I conclude and find that the
agreements between the Respondent and Rust, among
other employers , establishes an exclusive hiring hall ar-
rangement between those employers and Respondent.'
C. The Efforts of the Charging Party and Others to
Obtain Hiring Hall Information
It is alleged at paragraph 10. of the complaint that
since about 25 January, and thereafter , Respondent has
failed and , refused to make its referral list available to
members and other individuals on request.
The General Counsel presented a number of witnesses
who testified they had requested that they be permitted
to inspect the referral cards utilized by the Union in
making referrals to ascertain if they were being properly
listed on the referral system..
Jim . Isbill a 26-year member of the Union , testified he
had asked various officials at the hiring hall during 1984
* The complaint did not allege that the hiring hall agreements were
unlawful in any manner ,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING) 901
to permit him to see the out-of-work referral list. Isbill
stated he asked Union Secretary Wetzel and Secretary-
Treasurer Robert Barnes to see the list, and both of them
told him he would have to talk to Union President
George Moir. Isbill asked Moir to see the whole proce-
dure so he could understand it. • Union, President Moir
told Isbill, "You're not going to see nothing."
Porter testified that around March or April he, in the
presence of James C. McDade and Isbill, asked to see the
referral list in order to determine if it was being adminis-
tered properly.5 Porter stated Union President Moir told
him that he had been advised by his attorney that he did
not have to show them anything.
Edgar D. Cate, an 18-yearr member of the Union, testi-
fied that just prior to 4 May, he asked Union President
Moir to see the out-of-work referral list. According to
Cate, Moir told him he "didn't have no business looking
at it . . . he'd run it the way he wanted to."
Johnny Black testified that between January and the
beginning of May, he asked three or four times to see the
out-of-work referral records. Black testified he was never
allowed to examine the referral cards and stated, "[t]hey
just [used] whatever kind of excuse that was available"
in not allowing him to see the records.s Jerry H. Bur-
gess, a 15-year-member of the Union, testified he asked
on several occasions to see the referral list. Burgess first
asked to see the list in January. Burgess stated that, when
he asked Union. Secretary Wetzel and Secretary-Treasur-
er Barnes to see the referral list, they told him, "We're
not showing it to anyone." Wetzel told Burgess that
Union President Moir had asked her not to show, the re-
ferral list to anyone.
Union President Moir was the only, witness Respond-
ent called to testify regarding members and applicants
asking to see Respondent's referral list and records. Moir
stated Porter and Isbill had asked him throughout 1984
to see the referral records. Moir testified Porter and
Isbill wanted to go through the whole thing, that they
wanted to see their own as well as everyone else's refer-
ral cards. Moir testified he told them they could only
look at their own cards. Moir stated he would not allow
them to look at any other referral cards other than their
own because a lot of individuals had personal informa-
tion on their referral cards, such as telephone numbers,
and they did not want everyone to see that information.
Moir stated some of the users of the hiring hall had even
told him that the telephone numbers they had given on
their referral cards were not their home numbers and
they wanted the information kept confidential. With re-
spect to allowing anyone to-inspect the referral records,
Union President Moir testified his policy was that when
"a man come in and act like a man , present himself as a
man and conduct himself, orderly, I didn't mind showing
him anything or going through anything with him."
Moir stated that every time Porter and Isbill asked to see
the referral records they were "cursing."
5 Porter stated that when he would ask union secretary Wetzel to see
the referral list, she would tell him she did not have anything to do with
it, that he would have to take the matter up with Union President Moir
6 The General Counsel did not have Black identify who in particular it
was that refused his requests to see the out -of-work records-
Union President Moir testified that, commencing in
July and on a monthly basis thereafter, he caused a list
of all active participants in the referral system 'to be
posted at the union hall. The list reflected the order for
each user of the hiring hall without any ,personal infor-
mation being revealed about the user. According to
Moir, the list was updated at the. beginning of each
month:'
Respondent contends it did not allow individual mem-
bers or applicants for referral to examine other members'
or applicants' referral cards because the cards contained
confidential information. Respondent further contends
that if there were any violations of the Act with respect
to it not allowing its referral records to be examined,
such violations were rendered moot when it commenced
in July to post at the hiring hall on a monthly basis lists
of active participants in the system in their correct refer-
ral order.
The General Counsel contends Respondent is obligat-
ed oti request to show its hiring hall records to any re-
ferral applicant affected by them. The General Counsel
argues there is no truly confidential information con-
tained on the referral cards utilized in the instant case
and that it would not be burdensome for Respondent to
make the referral cards available on request for inspec-
tion by affected users:
It is undisputed, and the, evidence clearly establishes,
that various affected members and applicants for referral
asked Respondent throughout 1984 to examine the refer-
ral records to ascertain if the referral system was being
properly administered, and it is just as clear that their re-
quests were rejected by union officials. The only real
reason advanced by the Union for denying the requests
of those who asked to inspect the referral records was
that the telephone numbers contained on the referral
cards were confidential. Respondent's stated reason for
refusing to allow an inspection of the hiring hall records
on the status of this record is totally without merit. The
Board has held that a union which undertakes to operate
a hiring hall has an obligation to show its hiring hall list
and records to any referral applicant affected by them
unless the records are burdensome or contain truly confi-
dential material. See, e.g., Bartenders Local 165-(Nevada
Resort), 261 NLRB 420 at 423 (1982); Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 575 (Coleman Electric), 270 NLRB 66 at 69-
70 (1984). The Board held in Local '165, supra, that tele-
phone numbers do not constitute confidential information
in that they are probably available through a local tele-
phone directory to anyone seeking them. Additionally,
Union President Moir, testified that if the individual
making the request to see the hiring hall records,
"act[ed] like a man," he would show them anything they
wanted to see. Such a standard is far too subjective to
constitute a valid verifiable criteria for releasing informa-
tion. I am• persuaded that those individuals who asked to
examine the hiring hall records had a valid reason for
doing so in that the information they. sought to obtain
from the hiring hall records was necessary in order for
them to determine if they were being properly referred
or wrongfully denied referral from the hiring hall. I am,
likewise, persuaded the Union herein has not demonstrat-
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed any legitimate or compelling interest that would au-
thorize it to deny such requests to examine its hiring hall
records. -I reject Respondent's contention that the matter
is currently moot because-it.has, since July, posted a list
once a month reflecting the correct order for members
and applicants for referral to be referred for employ-
ment. Respondent's contention is invalid for a number of
reasons. First, it does not provide verification that' the.
list in fact correctly reflects the true order for referral of
members and applicants. The correctness of such a list
could only be obtained, from a full examination of the
hiring hall records. Secondly, the list would in all likeli-
hood only be accurate on the day it was posted. As
members or applicants for referrals are thereafter re-
ferred, the list would no longer be accurate. Therefore, I
conclude and find the matter has not been rendered moot
by any actions taken by, Respondent. Accordingly, I find
Respondent has failed and refused without any valid
reason or compelling interest to the contrary to make its
referral records available to its members,and other appli-
cants for referral on request and its failure to do so con-
stitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
D. Referral Procedures and Changes
It is alleged at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint
that about 25 January Respondent orally instituted and at
all times material herein maintained a procedure whereby
it precluded members and other individuals from being
listed on its,referral list and from referral unless the users,
of the referral system- individually signed their referral
list information cards monthly and that the Union insti-
tuted such a procedure without notice to its members.
and other individuals in contravention of its established
referral procedure.
Respondent, at all material times herein, had approxi-
mately 2100 members, however, it appears based on the
names listed on the previously utilized out-of-work book
that only approximately 439 individuals were potentially-
involved with the referral system for the construction in-
dustry.' -
According to Union President Moir, prior to January
the Union utilized a book system with no written rules to
refer individuals for employment in the- construction in-
dustry. Moir stated the book system with no written
rules generated problems for the Union, both in time and
money to administer, and it was confusing to those utiliz-
ing or attempting to utilize it. Moir, who is a member of
Respondent's executive board, stated the executive board
decided in late 1983 to change'its referral system from a
book to an index-card-type system. Moir testified he con-
sulted legal counsel and thereafter decided on a set of
rules to govern the new index card system: The new
system was adopted by the executive board of the Union.
At the regular monthly meeting held on '8 January,'
Secretary-Treasurer.Barnes under "good and welfare for
t
7 The original out-of-work book reflects approximately 292 names that
were not referred for employment and 147 names of individuals that-
were at some point referred from the hiring hall for work resulting in
their names being lined through in the original out-of-work book
8 Respondent has held regular monthly meetings on the second Sunday
of each month at least since 1963.
the local" read the proposed new referral rules to the ap-
proximately 40 to 50 members who were present.9 It is
not disputed that Barnes -read the new rules -to those
present. However, there is sharp conflict as to what, if -
anything, Barnes said about the new rules. The new rules
which were read at the meeting are set forth in full as
follows: -
The-undersigned members for the Executive Board
for this Local Union, having considered the need
for adoption of a standing rule governing the oper-
ation of a hiring hall by this Local Union, hereby
adopt the following standing rule pursuant to the
authority vested in them by the By-Laws for. this
Local Union.
This Local Union shall operate a hiring hall at its
offices in Knoxville, Tennessee. The hiring hall
shall be available for the use of all persons, without
regard to their-Union affiliation or non-affiliation. -
The hiring hall shall be operated by the President.
and Business Manager of this Local Union, or his
designee, in accordance with the provisions of this
standing rule. -
' All persons desiring to be referred from the
hiring hall shall personally provide'- the President
and Business Manager with their name, address,
telephone number, industry to which referral is de-
sired , and shall also provide such other information
as is necessary to determine their length- of time or
service in the industry, places of employment and
qualifications for work in the industry for-which re-
ferral is desired.
No person shall be allowed to register for referral
unless they-are currently employed. A person shall
be considered unemployed when not working or
when working on a job of short duration which
shall be defined as ten (10) days or less. Any person
registering for referral from the hiring hall shall
renew their registration the first of every month.
The President and Business Manager shall make
referrals to 'those employers requesting workers
from among-'the persons who have registered for re-
ferral, taking into consideration the information pro-
vided by the persons upon registration.
Any person registering for referral from the
hiring hall and having any complaint concerning
such registration, referral, or the lack thereof, shall
have ,a right of appeal of any dispute concerning
such -matters . This appeal shall be in the form of a
letter by the aggrieved- person which shall`besub-
mitted to the Secretary-Treasurer of this Local
Union within five (5) days after the date of such
dispute or occurrence giving rise thereto.
Upon the receipt of a complaining letter filed by
any person, the Secretary-Treasurer shall promptly
notify the Local Union's Executive Board so that a
hearing on the Complaint may promptly be held.
Such hearing will be held by the Executive Board
8 Union President Moir stated that applicants for referral who were
not members of the Union were not allowed to attend union meetings
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING)
of this Local Union not' later than ten (10) days
from the date of the filing of such a complaint, and
at the hearing all parties shall be accorded full and
equal opportunity to present evidence and argu-
ment A majority vote of the Executive Board shall
determine what remedy, if any, shall be applied
with respect to the complaint.
A notice setting forth this standing rule shall be
posted at the offices of this Local Union where in-
terested persons may observe the availability of
hiring hall referrals of this Local Union pursuant to
the Rule.
Secretary-Treasurer Barnes stated that after he read
the new rules to those present at the 8 January' meeting,
he held up a sample of an index card that would be uti-
lized and explained that after the cards were filled out, a.
number would be assigned to each card and the number
would initially be based on each individual's standing in
the original out-of-work book and that individuals there-
after preparing cards and utilizing the hiring hall would
be assigned consecutive numbers and referrals would be
made from the index cards 10 Barnes testified he also
told those present at the meeting that" each month "each
member would have to come in and/or call in and initial
or 'sign that, card . to show their intent that they
wanted to stay on the referral system " Union President
Moir stated that not only did Barnes hold up a copy of
an index card at the, meeting but that he told those
present they would have to renew their cards once every
month on the first of the month, if possible, by coming. in
and signing.or initialing the card or they could call in
and remain current on the referral list 11 Moir acknowl-
edged in response to questions by the General Counsel
that only those present at the 8 January meeting would
have initially heard the requirement that the index cards
had to be signed or initialed monthly in order for them
to remain in the active referral category. Moir testified,
however, that some individuals that lived as far away as-
Alabama and Mississippi "evidently knew" about the
monthly renewal requirements because some of them.re-
newed their referral cards.
The Union called Wilburn Cate, a retired employee12
who had been a member of the Union for 30 years, to
testify regarding the instructions that were given to those
present at the 8 January meeting regarding signing or ini-
tialing the index referral. cards. Cate stated in his direct
testimony that Barnes -told the group that "[t]hey was
changing them [the referral system], putting them on the
cards . - . . instead of being on just a book," and that
anyone -utilizing the hiring hall for referral would "have
to come in and sign up every month." However, on
cross-examination, Cate testified Barnes said that any ap-
plicant who wanted to stay current on the referral list
would have to "[c]ome in and renew [their cards] every
month." When asked if Barnes had said to come in and
10 I note that the referral rules do not require the Union to refer appli-
cants in the order in which their cards are numbered
'' It is noted that the rules do not have a provision stating that users
may, call in and have their cards renewed in that manner
12 Cate stated that as a retired individual , he did not have an occasion
to fill out or sign one of the new referral cards
903
"sign" the card or come in and "renew" it, Cate testified
Barnes said, "To come in I reckon and sign it, but you
had to come in every month to renew it." Cate acknowl-
edged that since he was a retired person at the time and
not seeking employment anywhere, he did 'not pay as
much attention to what was being said as others might
have done who were interested in being referred for em-
ployment.
Cate testified the minutes of the January meeting were
read at the February meeting and stated the subject of
changing the referral system was included in the January
minutes that were read at the February monthly meeting
of the Union.
Respondent also called Teddy J. Ritchie to testify and
he stated he was present at the January meeting when
the new referral rules were read and adopted. Ritchie
testified, "Well, Bob [Barnes] got up and read the out-of-
work rules, that they was going to adopt the rules, said
each man would be responsible to fill out a card and
keep it updated each month . ." Ritchie said he had
followed the new rules and had reregistered for referral
three times pursuant to the new rules.
The General Counsel presented a number of witnesses
who testified regarding the January union meeting.
Porter was oiie of those called by the General Counsel
-to testify Porter stated Barnes read the work rules ver-
batim and explained that the Union was going to estab-
lish a Rolodex-type card system and that individuals uti-
lizing the hiring hall for referral -would have to keep
their index cards ""updated"" on a monthly basis. Porter
testified Barnes did not say how the cards were to be up-
dated but did state that individuals -could' call in on 'a
monthly basis and say they were still out of work and
-their cards would be renewed on the-list. Porter specifi-
cally denied Barnes said the cards had to be renewed by
either signing or initialing them. -
Porter testified that in January he either filled out or
one of the Union's secretaries filled out for him a referral
card' pursuant to the new referral rules. Porter stated he
never at any time signed or initialed that or any other
referral card because the rules did not require him to do
so. Porter stated he simply followed the new referral
rules: 13
Isbill testified he supported changing the referral rules
in order to get a fair method for referring applicants.
Isbill specifically denied Barnes said anything about
haling to sign or initial the referral cards at the January
meeting.
Isbill stated Union Secretary Wetzel filled out his re-
ferral card for him and after she had done so, asked him
if he wanted to sign it. Isbill told Wetzel there was no
need to sign the card and she told him okay and thereaf-
ter assigned his card a number.
McDade testified he was referred for employment by
Respondent in 1984 but added he thought his referral
was a result of his threatening the Union that he would
seek help from the Board if he was not referred for em-
ployment. McDade identified his referral card which had
13 Isbill corroborated in essential parts Porter's testimony outlined
above
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his dated (1-9-84) signature and his dated ,(2-2-84) ini-
tials on the reverse side of the card. McDade stated he
also filled out a second referral card in May but did not
thereafter renew his referral card because "he found out"
at the trial of Teamsters Local 519, JD-(ATL)-90-84,14
supra, that his referral card had been' "thrown away" by
the Union.
The Rolodex-type card utilized by Respondent in its
new referral system has a place for the Union's name and
address at 'the top.' There is also a place provided for the
applicant's name, address, telephone number, and other
information pertaining to the type job the applicant de-
sired and what qualifications the applicant had for the re-
quested position of employment. The card does not have
a place for the applicant to sign or initial.
The initial question that must be - decided is whether
the Union at its January meeting orally instituted a rule
that precluded members and applicants from being listed
on its -referral system and consequently from being re-
ferred` unless the members and applicants for referral
signed or initialed their referral cards on a monthly basis.
If the Respondent instituted such a rule, did it communi-
cate that requirement to its members and other applicants
for referral in an adequate and timely manner?
I shall consider first what was actually announced, at
the January meeting of the Union regarding its new re-
ferral rules. It is clear from all the evidence that Secre-
tary-Treasurer Barnes read the,proposed new hiring hall
rules ,to the 40 or 50 members present for the meeting.
The new rules were also posted at the union hall. Con-
trary to the.testimony of Moir and Barnes,15 and in line
with the testimony of Porter and Isbill, I am persuaded
that Barnes announced-only that the cards had to be re-,
newed on a monthly basis but did not announce any spe-
cific requirement that-the referral cards had to-be signed
or initialed,by,the users on a monthly basis in order to be
renewed. Not only did Porter and Isbill appear to be tell-
ing the truth on this particular point, the record evidence
overwhelmingly supports their testimony. If the Union
had wanted its members and applicants for referral to
sign or initial their referral cards in order for the cards
to be renewed, it would have included such a require-
ment in -its written rules. As noted, there is no mention
made in the referral rules of any requirement that users
sign or initial their cards in, order for them to be re-
newed. The rules simply -reflect that the cards must be
renewed on a monthly basis but the rules do not reflect a
specific manner or method for renewing the cards. Like-
wise, if it had been a requirement under the new rules
that the cards be signed or initialed, the Union would
have 'provided a place on the referral cards for the signa-
ture or- initials of its members and applicants. As noted,
no such place, is provided for on the cards. It is` clear on
this record that members and applicants for referral were
not required to sign or initial their referral cards at ,the
time the card system was established. It is likewise ac-
i4 The trial in that case was held on 3 and 4 May
15 I place no reliance on the testimony of Wilburn Cate regarding
what was said regarding the renewal of cards at the January meeting be-
cause Cate was too unsure of what he had actually heard Cate even ac-
knowledged that he did not listen closely to what was said at the meet-
ing
knowledged by Respondent that users could telephone
the Union and for a variety of reasons have their cards
renewed without having , to sign or initial them. Like-
wise, when Isbill told one of the Union's secretaries that
there was no need for him to sign his referral card, she
acknowledged it was okay and assigned him a referral
number.
The fact that Respondent presented one referral card
in evidence that had been both signed and initialed by
McDade does not establish a pattern that there was a re-
quirement that the referral cards be signed or initialed in
order to be renewed. The absence of such a pattern
strongly suggests no announcement was made by Barnes
that there was any such requirement that users sign, or
initial their referral cards in order to have the cards be
renewed. Furthermore, a close review of McDade's card
(R. Exh. 6) discloses that McDade's signature and initials
appear apparently after the dates he was referred for
work and not when he was available for work. For ex-
ample, McDade's signature appears after he was referred
for work on' 9 January, and his initials appear after he
was referred for work on 2 February; however, when he
was eligible' for referral no signature or initials follow
that notation. There is some ambiguity with respect to
what,' if- anything, McDade's card establishes with re-
spect to whether there was a requirement to sign or ini-
tial-referral cards in order to renew them. I am persuad-
ed that McDade's card, although signed and initialed,
does not detract from the overall weight of the evidence
which indicates that Respondent never- announced a-rule
to all concerned that members or applicants for referral
were required to initial or sign their referral cards on a
monthly basis in order to have their cards be renewed.
My finding that there was.-no oral announcement
made16 at the January meeting of a rule requiring mem-
befs or applicants for referral to sign or initial their refer-
ral cards on a monthly basis in order for them to be re-
newed does not mean the Union did not attempt to
apply, and did actually apply, such a rule against certain
users of the referral hall for various reasons'which will
hereinafter be discussed. This conclusion is demonstrat-
ed,-for example, by the testimony of E. Cate who did
not attend the January meeting at which the new rules
were discussed but was told about them by Isbill Cate
stated he went to the union hall in late January, and
-while there he filled out and initialed a referral card and
also spoke with Union President Moir. Cate stated-Moir
did not tell -him anything about renewing his card
monthly but did tell him there "would be members that
don't know anything about this, we'll throw their cards
away after two or three months." Cate's, testimony on
this particular point was uncontradicted. The fact that
Respondent attempted to apply a requirement of signing
16 Even if I found that such a rule was orally announced at the Janu-
ary meeting, I would conclude Respondent did not adequately or timely
notify its members and other applicants for referral of the change and its
failure to adequately and timely notify all members and applicants for re-
ferral of the change would constitute arbitrary conduct on the part of the
Union and would be a breach of its duty to represent all job applicants
fairly by keeping them informed about matters critical to their employ-
ment status See, e.g, Operating Engineers Local 406 (Ford, Bacon & Davis
Construction), 262 NLRB 50 at 51 (1982)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519.(RUST ENGINEERING) - 905
4
or initialing referral cards against certain users of its
hiring hall is further borne out by the testimony of
Johnny Black that he was at the union hall on business
unrelated to the referral system sometime after the new
rules were adopted and Union President Moir _ and
Barnes both told him in Moir's office that the Union had
a new card system and that everybody "was supposed to
come in once a month and sign `the cards." 17 Black
stated Moir and Barnes both told him the benefit of the
new card system would be for example "people off the
street" would not know of the monthly sign up require-
ment and their cards would be dropped from the referral
register and "that way it would help . .. union members
only" and that others would be eventually dropped from
the referral list. I credit Black's undenied and uncontra-
dicted testimony outlined above.
It is apparent that Respondent at least by late January
orally modified its referral procedures with respect to
some users of the hinng hall in that it required some of
them to either sign or initial their referral cards on a
monthly basis in order, to have the cards be renewed. It
is also apparent the Union did not give adequate or
timely notice to all its members and other applicants for
referral of the change in its rules, and it also selectively
applied the changed requirements in administering the
hiring hall. -
Having established what announcements were made to
the union members present at the January monthly meet-
ing of Respondent regarding the new referral rules and
having touched on the fact that the Union thereafter
orally modified, at least as it applied to certain users of
the referral hall, its rules regarding renewing referral
cards, I shall now consider the means, the Respondent
utilized in actually setting up the new Rolodex card
system in order to better ascertain if the discriminatees
named in the complaint were treated in a discriminatory
manner by the Respondent.
E. The Union's. Actions in Setting up the Referral
System
Respondent trustee, assistant business agent and dele-
gate to_ the local trade council, James W. Hamby Jr., tes-
tified he was given instructions by Union President Moir
to convert the referral procedure from an out-of-work
book system to a Rolodex card system Hamby testified
he copied all information on each individual from the
out-of-work referral book to an index card and assigned
each card a number based on the individual's standing in
the original out-of-work book. Hamby stated he' trans-
ferred from the out of work book to the card system ap-
proximately 300 names.18 Respondent's president, Moir,
testified that the executive board of the Union decided to
give all individuals that were transferred from the out-of-
work book to the new card system a 2-month (January
and February) grace period to renew their referral cards
11 Black testified that while he was at the hinng hall, Union Secretary
Wetzel prepared a referral card for him
18 Hamby testified he transferred approximately 300 or 400 names
from the out-of-work book. The actual out-of-work book reflects ap-
proximately 292 names that were eligible to be transferred to the card
system Therefore, I have relied on 1-Iamby's estimation of 300 rather
than 400 names that were transferred from the book to the card system
before any action would be taken against them and he,
stated the renewal could be accomplished by either ini-
tialing • or signing the referral cards or, if the applicant
lived a distance from the union hall he or she could call
in and ask that his or her card be renewed. Moir stated
he was responsible for administering the referral system
and that about. 1 March,19 he removed some 200 referral
cards from active referral status and placed them in an
inactive status because the applicants had not renewed
their referral -cards during the 2-month grace period pro-
vided.
1. Named discriminatees involvement with the new
referral system
It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent unlaw-
fully removed from its referral system, Isbill, E. Cate,
Porter, McDade, and others and that it thereafter failed
and refused to refer them to available positions of em-
ployment with employers including Rust. -
Isbill, as noted elsewhere in this decision, was present
at the January meeting at which the new, referral rules
were adopted. In January Isbill went to the union hall
and Union Secretary Wetzel filled but a referral card for
him. Isbill was asked by Wetzel if he wanted to sign the
card-and he told her there was no need for that. Wetzel
gave her okay and told Isbill he was being assigned card
number 62, . and that he needed to remember his
number.20 Isbill stated he refused to sign his referral
card because his name had appeared in the original out-
of-work book at places where he knew he had not signed
his name . Isbill testified he went to the union hall on at
least a monthly basis regarding the referral 'system.
Union President Moir testified he removed Isbill's card
from active referral status and placed it in an inactive
status on 1 March, because Isbill. would not renew his
card. Moir testified Isbill refused to sign or initial his
card even after being asked to do so.
E. Cate, though at first , somewhat confused as to
when, if ever, he filled out a referral card under the new
referral system, acknowledged he, in fact, did sign a re-
ferral card sometime in the latter part of January after
being told about the new referral system by Isbill. Cate
spoke with Union Secretary Wetzel and Union President
Moir when he was at the union hall to fill out his refer-
ral card. Cate testified Moir did not tell him he had to
report in each month. Cate testified .he returned to the
union hall quite a few times after he registered under the
new referral procedure Cate stated the next occasion he
returned to the union hall after filling out his card was in
February. Cate testified he was told by Union President
Moir during the May trial of Teamsters Local 519, JD-
(ATL)-90-84, supra, that Moir had thrown his referral
's At one point in his testimony , Moir indicated it was at the end of
March when he removed the referral cards from active referral status
However, his other testimony that individual users were given a 2-month
grace period , namely, January and February, tends to indicate that the I
March date is correct
20 I do not find Hamby's testimony that he filled out a portion of Is-
bill's card to contradict Isbill's testimony regarding who filled out his
card because Hamby acknowledged he only partially filled out Isbill's
card and that Wetzel filled in the remainder of it. .
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
card away but might allow him to sign, another one if he
came by the union hall.
Porter was present at the January union meeting when
the new rules were adopted. As is set forth elsewhere in
this decision, Porter credibly testified that no mention
was made at that meeting of having to sign or initial re-
ferral cards in order to have them be renewed. Porter
spoke with Union Secretary Wetzel at the time he filled
out his referral card in January. Porter could not recall if
the card had already been filled out at the time he was at
the union hall or if Wetzel filled it out for him in his
presence. Porter testified he went to the union hall at
least once a month thereafter to inquire about the avail-
ability of work .2 i Porter stated he was never referred
for employment after the new referral system went into
effect.
Moir contends he told Porter in February that he
would have to either initial or sign his referral card to
keep it renewed , and that Porter told him he did not
have to because he was already in compliance with the
referral rules and requirements . Union President Moir ac-
knowledged Porter had been at the union hall every
month after he initially filled out his card. I am persuad-
ed, as testified to by Porter , that he first learned that Re-
spondent was insisting on the referral cards being either
initialed or signed in order to be renewed at' the May
unfair labor practice trial in Teamsters Local 519, JD-
(ATL)-90-84, supra. I specifically discredit Union Presi-
dent Moir 's testimony that he told Porter in February of
the requirement to - sign or initial his card in order to
have it be renewed.
McDade did not at first recall if he had signed a refer-
ral card or not but later acknowledged he had been re-
ferred for work by the Union in 1984 . McDade testified
he felt he was referred for work because he threatened
the Union that he would go to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for assistance if he was not referred.
McDade was referred for work at Rust on ' 9 January,
and as more fully explained elsewhere in this decision,
his signature -appears on his referral card immediately
after the printed date that he was referred for work on
that occasion . McDade was out of work on 24 January,
and thereafter referred for work on 2 February. Some
time after that , McDade 's card was removed from active
referral status and he filled out a second referral card, on
17 May. Neither McDade 's signature nor his initials
appear on his second referral, card . McDade testified he
prepared the second referral card after the trial of Team-
sters Local 519, JD -(ATL)-90- 84, had taken place in
May. McDade stated he did not sign up monthly after he
registered the second time because he had been subpoe-
naed to testify in the May unfair labor practice trial and
had lost his job immediately 'thereafter . McDade stated it
was his understanding that if he did not sign up` each
month, he could call in and someone at the union hall
would update his card for him. McDade acknowledged
he never called in to have his 'card updated but stated he
did go by the union hall thereafter and "he figured" they
signed him up to keep his card current, however, he did
not ask them to do so.
Before analyzing the facts and making legal conclu-
sions regarding the referral practices of Respondent' as
they relate to the individuals named in the complaint, I
shall consider that evidence which the General Counsel
contends establishes that the named discriminatees were
union dissidents.
2. Dissident activities of the alleged discriminatees
The following facts are not disputed. _ Porter - was at
one time employed by the Union but was released from
his employment- prior to the events in the instant case.
Porter was the charging party " in Case 10-CB-4238
which case was, as reflected elsewhere in this decision,
decided by Administrative Law Judge Howard I. Gross-
man on 28 November.22 Judge Grossman concluded, in
part, that the Union had unlawfully refused to refer
Porter for employment from the hiring hall. In his deci-
sion , Judge Grossman concluded that Porter was " a clas-
sic union dissident." Judge Grossman indicated in his de-
cision that he based his conclusion that Porter was a
classic union dissident in part on the fact that Porter had
won a $120,000 state court action against officials of the
Union based on allegations of defamation of character.
Porter also filed a charge against the Union on 22 Octo-
ber, in Case 10-CB-4437 which charge was subsequently
withdrawn. Porter testified he had filed at least one, and
possibly two, Federal lawsuits against the Union in the
past 2 years.23
As is reflected in the caption of the instant case, Isbill
filed the charge against the Union that is the basis for the
complaint at bar As is likewise set forth elsewhere in
this Decision, Porter, Cate, and Isbill had all attempted
to inspect the out-of-work referral records of the Union
and' each had his requests denied by officials of the
Union. Porter, Isbill, and others picketed the union hall
near the end of July protesting, according to Porter, the
manner in which Respondent operated the hiring hall.24
McDade had threatened to complain about the Union to
the Board if he was not referred for employment. I am
persuaded that the above-undisputed facts establish that
the named discriminatees were known union "dissidents.
F. Brief Factual Summary
It will be helpful at this point in understanding how
the Union operated its hiring hall to briefly summarize
the operative facts. This summary has been taken from
21 Porter testified he informed the Union of a change in his telephone
number in either April or May and stated he was told by Union President
Moir that he would have to fill out a new card because his card had been
thrown away in that he had not followed the rules of the hiring hall
Porter stated he did not reregister because he had followed the hiring
hall rules just as they were written up Union President Moir acknowl-
edged this conversation with Porter , however , he placed the date of the
conversation in March
22 Judge Grossman's decision is currently on appeal to the Board
23 Porter could recall filing three separate lawsuits against Respondent
during that time period but could not recall if the suits were Federal or
state actions
24 Respondent obtained a Knox County, Tennessee chancery court
order enjoining the protestors from blocking entrances to the union hall
and from interfering with the operations of the union hall The protestors
were permitted by the court order to peacefully protest
TEAMSTERS LOCAL ' 519 (RUST ENGINEERING)
all credible evidence presented, in the case.25 I have
made credibility resolutions elsewhere in this decision,
and I shall not, unless otherwise indicated, reiterate my
rationale for the necessary credibility resolutions that I
have made.,
It is apparent there had been dissatisfaction among the
users of the hiring hall with the method and manner in
which it had. been operated. It is likewise apparent that
in December 1983 the Union decided to devise a new re-
ferral system. That proposed new system was reduced to
writing and presented to those members present at the
regular January union meeting. There is nothing in this
record to indicate that the Union's general membership
had any advance notice that the proposed new hiring
hall rules would be presented to the membership for con-
sideration at the January meeting. At the time the Union
presented the new rules to its membership, no mention
was made of the fact that there would be an additional
requirement that referral cards- would have to be either
signed or .initialed in order to be renewed. The written
rules, which were posted at the union hall, and which
are set forth in full elsewhere in this decision, do not re-
quire that the referral cards be signed or initialed in
order to be renewed nor is there anyplace provided for
on the type referral card utilized for a user to either sign
or initial the cards. On the status of this record, the earli-
est that any user of the hiring hall had notification of any
signing or initialing requirements related to the referral
cards came in late January. The requirement that the .
cards be signed or initialed in order to be renewed was
not announced to the general membership at any mem-
bership meeting but was rather announced by officials of
the Union to certain users of the hiring hall and applied
against certain selected users in order to remove their re-
ferral cards from active referral status. Two of the top
officers of the Union (Moir and Barnes) informed certain
users of the hiring hall that the Union's purpose in set-
ting' up the new referral system with the additional sign-
ing or initialing requirement was so the Union could
eliminate certain users from the system because they
would not know of or be aware of the additional require-
ments and, as such, they would be eliminated from the
system thereby benefiting certain union members. The
Respondent refused to allow those who asked to examine
the referral records thereby denying them an opportunity
to ascertain if they 'were being treated fairly by the
Union in the operation of the hiring hall.
It is in light of this background that I shall examine
the actions of the Respondent related to the named al-
leged discriminatees. However, before doing so, I shall
address the Union's contention that the alleged discrimin-
atees should be required to exhaust their administrative
remedies within the Union before any action is taken on
their unfair labor practice allegations.
'G. The Deferral Issue
The Union urges that it would be a prudent exercise of
restraint in line with Collyer Insulated Wire, 192,NLRB
837 (1971), and 'United Technologies, 268 NLRB 557
25 These summanzed facts are more fully explained elsewhere in this
decision
907 - ',
(1984), for the Board to defer action in the instant -case
until the alleged discnminatees exhaust their internal
remedies as outlined in the written referral hall rules. Re-
spondent urges that by deferring, the Board would en-
courage the effective use of dispute solving machinery at
a level closest to the parties. Respondent also argues that
deferral in the-instant case would strengthen its ability to
self-govern, would promote a more efficient operation of
its referral system, and that decisions would be more
consistent if the same neutral body reviewed' the inde-
pendent decisions of the many separate -individuals
charged with operating the referral system.
The General Counsel urges that deferral would be in-
appropriate.
In the written referral rules of Respondent,, there is a
procedure for those having complaints concerning the
referral system to have their complaints taken to the ex-
ecutive board of the local union for disposition. Deferral,
however, to the executive board in the instant case
would be inappropriate for a number of reasons. It has
been alleged that certain of Respondent's officials,
namely, Union President Moir, Secretary-Treasurer
Barnes , and Trustee Hamby, have been involved in the
alleged discriminatory operation of the hiring hall. These
same officials of Respondent serve on the, executive
board of the local Union, in fact Union President Moir
chairs the executive board, and as such it would leave
open the question of whether aggrieved users of the
hiring hall could get a fair and impartial hearing before
the Union's executive board if deferral to that board was
granted. It is in light of that possibility, that it would be
inappropriate to grant deferral in the instant case: The
cases relied on by the Respondent in support of deferral
are distinguishable in that those, cases pertain to disputes
arising between an employer and union pursuant to a
collective-bargaining agreement and riot to internal dis-
putes between the union and ,its own members. As Ad-
ministrative Law Judge William' J._ Pannier III noted
with Board approval in Musicians Local 47, 255 NLRB
386 at 391 (1981)- "The board has not adopted a policy
of deferral for exhaustion' of internal disputes resolution
procedures between labor organizations and their mem-
bers." Accordingly, for all the above reasons and in
agreement with the Board 's stated position in Musicians
Local 47, I reject Respondent 's argument that the instant
case should be 'deferred to the internal dispute resolution
procedures outlined in the referral hall rules.
H. Board Precedent Regarding Hiring Hall
Arrangements
In looking at the remaining issues in the instant case, it
is well 'established that a labor organization which oper-
ates a hiring hall pursuant to a contract or other arrange-
ment with an employer as the exclusive source of em-
ployees for that employer is obligated to refer users of
the hiring hall without regard to their union membership
or loyalty . See,, e .g., Plumbers -Local 137 (Hames Con-
struction), 207 NLRB 359 (1973). The Board has held
that a union which operates, as'in the instant case, an ex-
clusive hiring hall must represent all users of the hall in a
fair and impartial manner .- Electrical Workers IBEW Local
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11 (Los-Angeles NECA), 270 NLRB 424, 425 (1984). The
Board has held that since a union has such comprehen-
sive authority vested in it when it acts as the exclusive
agent-of users of a'hiring hall and because the users must
place such dependence on the union that there necessari-
ly arises a fiduciary duty on the part of the union not to
conduct itself in an arbitrary, invidious, or discriminatory
manner when representing those who seek to be referred
out for employment by it. See Ironworkers Local 111
(Northern States Steel Builders), 274 NLRB 742 (1985).
Furthermore, the Board has held that any departure
from established exclusive hiring hall procedures which
results in a denial of employment to an applicant falls
within that class of discrimination which inherently en-
courages union membership, breaches the duty of fair
representation owed to all hiring hall users, and violates
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, unless the union
demonstrates that its interference with employment was
pursuant to a valid union-security clause or was neces-
sary to the effective performance of its representative
function. Operating Engineers Local 406 (Ford, Bacon
Corp.), 262 NLRB-50 at 51 (1982). It is without question
that discriminatory referrals from an exclusive hiring hall
violates Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. See Laborers Local
135 (Bechtel Power Corp.), 271 NLRB 777, 780 (1984). A
nondiscriminatory exclusive hiring hall arrangement does
not violate the Act nor is it unlawful for a union,'such as
in the instant case, to establish written rules governing
the operation of the hiring hall In fact, it is an encour-
aged practice to have written rules.
1. Analysis •
The General Counsel does not contend that any provi-.
sion in Respondent's written hiring hall rules is unlawful
on its face; therefore, I shall only consider whether the
Respondent's oral changes to those rules violated the,
Act When the Union orally changed its written ruses in
late January to require that the referral cards be either
initialed or signed in order to be updated and thereafter
failed to give adequate timely notice to all users of the
hiring hall of that significant change in its referral proce-
dures, it engaged in arbitrary conduct and breached its
duty to represent all users of the hiring hall fairly by fail-
ing to inform them about a matter that was so critical to
their, employment status. The fact that the oral an-
nouncement regarding the signing or initialing of the re-
ferral cards was -a significant change in the referral rules
is demonstrated by the fact that approximately 200 users
of the hiring hall had their cards removed from active_
referral status pursuant to that change. The fact that the
Union had an ulterior motive for making the change in
its rules and that it never intended to give adequate and
timely notice of that change to all users of the hiring hall
is demonstrated by the undenied and uncontradicted
statements attributed to Union President Moir and Secre-
tary-Treasurer Barnes that the change in rules, would
benefit certain union members only in that it_ would
allow the Union to drop applicants for referral who at-
tempted to utilize the hiring hall from "off the street"
and it would also allow the Union to drop members who
did not know about the, orally announced change. Such
stated intent by the Union substantiates the fact that the-
Union never intended to represent all users of the hiring
hall in a fair and impartial manner . Respondent's conduct
in that respect may explain why it refused to allow any
inspection of its referral records. Respondent has not met
its burden of demonstrating that its orally announced
change in the referral rules in late January was in any
manner necessary for the effective operation of the
hiring hall. As indicated above, quite the contrary is
true. It announced the change in the referral rules in the
limited manner it did for reasons unrelated to the effi-
cient operation of the hiring hall. The massive number
(compared to the overall users of the hiring hall for the
construction industry) of users' referral cards which
were removed from active referral status on or about 1
March, taken in conjunction with the specific examples
of discrimination alleged in the complaint and hereinafter
outlined, persuades me that the General Counsel has es-
tablished that the Union has engaged in "widespread and
pervasive" misconduct in the operation of the hiring hall
and as such I find that all out-of-order referrals (not dust
those named in the complaint) made by Respondent since
1 March were discriminatory and in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act even though some such dis-
criminatees were not specifically identified in the com-
plaint. It is clear that jobs were available inasmuch as
Respondent referred approximately 57 users of the hiring
hall to positions of employment with various employers
in 1984. It is appropriate to leave to the compliance stage
the identity of similarly situated users of the hiring hall
who were removed from active referral status for failing
to comply with a requirement that they may well not
have known about. It is likewise appropriate to leave to
the compliance stage those individual users' qualifications
for referral and what, if any, backpay such users might
be entitled to.
J. The Named Discriminatees
A summary of my findings with respect to each named
discriminatee follows.
1. Jim Isbill
Isbill 's initial referral card prepared pursuant to the
new referral rules was filled out for him by Union Secre-
tary Wetzel. Isbill told Wetzel at the time she prepared
his initial referral card that he did not need -to sign it.
Thereafter Wetzel assigned Isbill a referral card number
pursuant to the new referral rules.
The Union contends Isbill 's name was removed from
the active referral register on 1 March for failing to
comply with the new referral procedures. Specifically,
Union President Moir testified he removed Isbill's refer-
ral card from active referral status because Isbill refused
to initial or sign his referral card even after being asked
to do so.
I am persuaded Respondent's stated reasons for remov-
ing Isbill 's name from the active referral list are pretex-
tual and that one, if not the only reason, his name was
removed from the active referral list was because he as-
sociated himself with Porter, who the evidence estab-
--TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING)
lishes was a classic union dissident 26 That Isbill's refer-
ral card was removed from active referral status for
other than lawful reasons is established in part by the
fact that Isbill was not required to sign or initial his card
when it was first prepared in order for it to be consid-
ered a valid referral card, and he thereafter reported on
at least a monthly basis to the hiring hall regarding the
out-of-work list. Therefore, the Union knew full well
that Isbill was available for work and desired to be re-
ferred. That Isbill was treated differently than others is
demonstrated by the fact that the Union even allowed
others to call in and renew their referral cards but re-
fused to renew Isbill's even though he appeared in
person at the hiring hall and expressed a desire to be re-
ferred. Union President Moir's testimony in response to a
question by the 'General Counsel further demonstrates
how the hiring hall was administered and what the re-
quirement of initialing the referral cards really meant
when he stated, "[W]ell, they [users] can come in .. .
and they'll say "let me have my card, I want to date it
that I was in today," and a lot of them will date . . . if
they're in today they'll put today's date, they'll put their
initials , some of them sign their full name, [s]ome people
call, some people come by and I'm not even there, and
they'll leave it with the secretary and she'll make a note,
then I'll sign their name when I come in the office." It is
clear that Union President Moir considered it proper
procedure for him to sign referral cards for certain users,
however, he personally removed Isbill's card for alleged-
ly failing to initial or sign his card even though Isbill
presented himself at the hiring hall and expressed a
desire to continue to be considered for referral. Such
action on the part of Union President Moir clearly con-
stitutes arbitrary conduct in administering the hiring hall.
The Union in its posttrial brief contends Isbill was em-
ployed at least some of the time in question and as such
would not have met the requirement of being unem-
ployed in order to be on the active referral list. Such de-
fense by Respondent is without merit because that was
not the stated reason that the Union removed him from -
the referral list. Additionally, there is no showing on this
record that Isbill's employment was other than sporad-
ic.27 Respondent has failed to negate the General Coun-
sel's prima facie showing of discrimination against Isbill.
Respondent has not advanced any lawful or nondiscrim-
inatory reason for removing Isbill's name from the active
referral list or for not referring him for employment on
and after 1 March. Accordingly, I find the Respondent
26 It appears Isbill continues to associate with union dissident Porter
and the Union is aware of his continued association with him in that the
two of them, along with others, picketed the union hall in July and were
named in a state court injunction precluding them from blocking en-
trances to the union hall The evidence establishes that Isbill and Porter
went to the hiring hall together on various occasions throughout 1984
and each of them requested to inspect the hiring hall records, however,
their requests were always denied That Isbtll has continued to be a pro-
tagonist against the Union is demonstrated by the fact that he filed the
charge that gave rise to the instant complaint
27 Respondent argues in its brief that Isbtll earned in excess or $4000
during 1984, however, the record does not establish that fact Respond-
ent's counsel asked Isbill if he made an amount in excess of $4000 in
1984, however, Isbill never acknowledged any such earnings
909
has engaged in, and is engaging in, conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A)-and (2) of the Act
As has been set forth elsewhere in this decision, em-
ployment positions were available inasmuch as the Union
referred approximately 57 users of the hiring hall to posi-
tions of employment with various employers in 1984 A
large portion of the referrals occurred after 1 March. I
find it unnecessary to set forth specifically which indi-
vidual users of the hiring hall were wrongfully' referred
in the place of Isbill inasmuch as Respondent improperly
removed such a high percentage of users from active re-
ferral status for failing to comply with its untimely and
inadequately announced rule change regarding the re-
newal of referral cards.28 Therefore, I shall leave to the
compliance stage of this proceeding which users were
.wrongfully referred for employment ahead of Isbill.29
2. Ed Cate
Respondent contends Cate did not follow referral pro-
cedures during 1984, and also that he was gainfully em-
ployed during the time in question and as such was not
eligible for referral. The evidence does not support the
Respondent's contentions. E. Cate registered at the
hiring hall in late January. Cate, although at times con-
fused as to exact dates, testified he "called in [to the
hiring hall] quite a few times" and talked to Union Presi-
dent Moir' or Secretary-Treasurer Barnes and that he
personally went to the hiring hall in February for the
monthly meeting of the Union. Cate stated that when he
called the hiring hall, he asked about work. The only es-
tablished knowledge that Cate had of any requirement
that he had to sign or initial his referral card in order to
keep it renewed was what Union President Moir told
him regarding actions the Union would take to remove
certain individual users from active referral status be-
cause they would not know of all the requirements to
remain on the active referral register. Cate first learned
in May that the Union had removed him from active re-
ferral status when he was at trial to testify in the matter
of Teamsters Local 519, JD-(ATL)-90-84, which case in-
volved Porter. Union President Moir told Cate sometime
prior to 4 May when Cate asked to see the hiring hall
records that he "didn't have no,business looking at [the
records] . . . he'd run [the referral system] the way he
wanted to."
It is clear that Cate registered for referral at the hiring
hall and thereafter called the hall to ask about work.
Cate was told by Moir that he would operate the hiring
hall in what would amount to a discriminatory manner.
Cate even tried to inspect the hiring hall records to see if
he was being treated fairly but he was denied access to
the records and told by the Respondent's president that
he would operate the hiring hall the way he wanted to.
Cate did all that was required of him in the written refer-
28 It is apparent the Respondent had a purpose other than the effective
'operation of its hiring hall when it announced to selected individual users
the requirement that referral cards be signed or initialed in order to
remain current
29 I shall likewise leave to the compliance stage which users were
wrongfully referred for employment ahead of Cate, Porter, McDade, and
possibly others without reiterating my reasons for doing so
910 DECISIONS `OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ral rules and he did exactly as others had done in that he
called the union hall to inquire about work; however, his
referral card was removed from active referral status.
Cate was informed that his card had been thrown away
at a time when .he was present at, and testified in, an
unfair labor practice trial involving - union dissident
Porter. I am persuaded and find that the Union by its
president removed Cate's card from active referral status
about 1 March for arbitrary and discriminatory reasons,
and, as such, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of: the
Act. It is apparent that Cate was too closely associated
with a known union dissident and was considered by the
Union to be one himself.
Counsel for Respondent in his posttrial brief contends
that Cate was employed at least during certain portions
of the time frame involved in the instant case and that, as
such, he was not entitled to be on the active referral list.
Respondent's defense is without merit. The evidence in-
dicates Cate's referral card was removed from active re-
ferral status for allegedly failing -to -comply with hiring
hall procedures, not because he-may have been employed
during some part of the time period in question in the in-
stant case . Secondly, the evidence does'not clearly estab-
lish the amount of work Cate performed 'during the time
period in question or whether he was employed on more
than a sporadic or irregular basis. Union President Moir.
acknowledged that a user (such as James P. Evans)
could remain on active referral status and be employed
"off and on . one day a week." Simply stated, the
Union has failed to rebut' in any manner the General
Counsel's prima facie case involving Cate.30
3. Ted L. Porter
The Union contends Porter was removed from the
active referral list -because he failed to comply with or
adhere to the rules of the hiring hall. The Union further
asserts Porter knew of the rules and specifically refused
to update or renew his referral -card in accordance with
those rules. The Union in its -posttrial brief suggests
Porter had his own interpretation of the hiring hall rules
and did not seek an interpretation from the Union re-
garding those rules. Respondent's counsel in his post trial
brief states that Porter displayed contempt for-the Union
by his "picky attitude."
The evidence establishes Porter was present when the
new referral rules were adopted at the January meeting
of the Union. The evidence also establishes that no men-
tion was made at that meeting that referral cards had to
be initialed or signed in-order to be renewed. Porter reg-
-istered at the hiring hall pursuant to the new rules in
January. Thereafter, Porter. went to the union hall at
least once a month and informed Respondent that he was
still seeking and was available for employment. Although
Porter followed the procedures outlined in the hiring
hall rules,'he was never referred for employment in 1984,
and his name was also removed from the active referral
list for allegedly failing, to comply with the rules of the
hiring hall. Porter learned his card had been removed
from active referral status when he visited the union hall
some time between late March and early May. Union
President Moir told Porter on that particular occasion
that his -card had been thrown away because he had
failed -to follow the hiring hall rules Porter testified he
refused to_ reregister at the hiring hall because he had
complied with all the rules of the hall and had done as
other applicants for referral who had been permitted to
remain on the active referral list.
The evidence supports Porter's contention that he fol-
lowed the hiring hall rules. Therefore, I am persuaded
the Union had other unrelated reasons for removing him
from the active referral list. It is crystal clear that Porter
was, and is, a classic union dissident. He had previously
been employed by the Union but he had been released
from that employment with the Union prior to the
events of the instant case . Porter had filed various law-
suits , both Federal and state actions, against the Union
and had either filed or been involved in various other
unfair .labor practice charges or complaints against the
Union. Administrative Law Judge'Howard I. Grossman
in his decision in Teamsters Local 519, JD-(ATL)-90-84
(Nov. 20, 1984), found the Union had refused to refer
Porter for employment through the hiring hall for un-
lawful reasons. Porter had attempted without success on
two or three occasions in early 1984 to inspect the hiring
hall records of Respondent. That ' Porter continues to be
troublesome for Respondent is demonstrated by the - 'fact
that he along with Isbill and others picketed the union
hall in July protesting the manner and method in which
the Union operates its hiring hall. I am persuaded Re-
spondent about 1 March removed Porter from active re-
ferral status because he was a troublesome dissident. Re-
spondent has failed to rebut in any manner the General
Counsel's prima facie showing of a violation of the Act
as it relates to Porter's removal from the active referral
list *and the failure of the Union to refer him for available
employment. The actions of Respondent related to
Porter violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.31
4. James C. McDade
The Union contends McDade was not eligible for-re-
ferral for a portion of the time period involved in the in-
stant case because he was employed and it further con-
tends McDade did not comply with-hiring hall proce-
dures after 17 May. The Union urges that McDade was
aware of the requirement to update his referral card be-
cause he had done so on more than one occasion and
that after 17 May, he simply failed to keep his card up-
dated., Simply stated, Respondent asserts McDade know-
ingly ignored established referral procedures.
It is undisputed that McDade had an active referral
card in-.1984 and was referred to Rust for employment
on 9 January. McDade was again placed on the referral
list on 24 January, and was thereafter referred to Rust
'for employment on 2 February. It is not clear how long
McDade was employed by Rust on this second occasion;
however, his 'referral card was removed from active
status and as a result he filled out, but did not sign or
initial , a new referral card on 17 May. McDade was not
referred for employment thereafter. McDade testified it
30 See fn. 29 31 See fn.:29.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 519 (RUST ENGINEERING)
was.his understanding that if a user of the hiring hall did
not update his or her card each month, the user could
call in and the Union would update it for them McDade
stated he did not call in to.have his card updated but did
visit the union hall and "figured" the Union renewed his
card for him, however, he did not specifically ask
anyone at the Union to do so. It is undisputed on this
record that McDade threatened to take the Union to the
National Labor Relations Board if the Union did not
refer him for employment. McDade testified that after lie
made that threat, he was immediately referred for work
That particular employment referral only lasted for a
short period of time and McDade was thereafter on 2
February again referred for -employment. This second
employment apparently did not last for any significant
period of time inasmuch as McDade was at some point
thereafter prior to 17 May removed from the active re-
ferral list for allegedly failing to adhere to the Union's
referral rules. McDade was not referred after he pre-
pared his second referral card even though others were
referred after that date Under the circumstances of this
case, I am persuaded the Union knew that McDade was
seeking to be referred for employment at all times during
1984 that he was not actually working for Rust. McDade
went to the union hall and I am persuaded he was justi-
fied in "figuring" that union officials would renew or
update his card for him. McDade's belief that the Union
would renew his card is supported by the testimony of
Union President Moir. when he stated in answer to a
question by the General Counsel that individual users
could call in or come in and say they wanted their cards
renewed or would leave word with one of the Union's
secretaries that they wanted their cards renewed and he
would renew their referral cards for them. In light of all
of the record evidence, it would appear that McDade
met minimum requirements for keeping his card re-
newed. I am persuaded that the Union used the signing
or initialing requirement against McDade as a guise to
cover its real reason for removing him from the active
referral list, namely, that he had threatened to take the
Union to the National Labor Relations Board Accord-
ingly, I am persuaded the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act when it removed McDade's
name from active referral status sometime on or after 1
March, and again at• some date on or after 17 May.32 I
am persuaded Respondent failed to meet its burden of re-
butting the General Counsel's prima facie case that
McDade was removed from the active referral list, after
being given two short referrals, because he threatened to
take the Union to the National Labor Relations Board
and because the Union perceived that McDade was asso-
ciated with a dissident group at the Union.
In accordance with my, findings, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rust Engineering Company (Rust) is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Teamsters Local #519, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters. (Respondent or the
3 2 See fn 29
911
Union) is a labor- organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent operates an exclusive hiring hall referral
system, whereby it refers users of the hiring hall for em-
ployment with Rust and other employers.
4. Beginning about 25 January, Respondent orally
changed its established referral procedures and thereafter
required certain members and other applicants for em-
ployment to sign or initial their referral cards in order to
have the cards be renewed and Respondent orally insti-
tuted the change without giving adequate and timely
notice of the change to its members and other applicants
for employment, and it has thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
5. Beginning about 25 January, and continuing thereaf-
ter, Respondent has failed and refused to make its refer-
ral records available for inspection to its members and
other applicants for referral upon request, and it has
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the-Act.
6. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act when, beginning about 1 March, it removed
from its referral system and thereafter failed anu refused
to refer its members and other applicants for employ-
ment, including Jim 'Isbill, Ed Cate, Ted L. Porter, and
James C. McDade to available positions with Rust and
other employers because its members or applicants for
employment failed to comply with the orally instituted
change described above in Conclusion of Law 4, and/or
because its members or other applicants for referral were
union dissidents, associated with union dissidents, filed
unfair labor practice charges with the Board, threatened
to take the Respondent to the National Labor Relations
Board and/or because they engaged in concerted pro-
tected activities
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it -be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
First, I shall order that Respondent mail a copy of its
referral rules to all its members and applicants for refer-
ral. The rules shall be mailed to the most current address
known for each member and/or applicant for referral. I
order this even though there is evidence that the Union
may well have given such notice to at least some of its
members. However, since there has been an orally insti-
tuted change to certain of the rules and requirements, it
is, in fairness to all, necessary that all users of the hiring
hall know exactly what the Union requires of its mem-
bers and other applicants for referral in order for them
to be registered for referral and, to remain current on the
hiring hall referral list. Secondly, I shall order Respond-
ent to make its referral records available for inspection
upon request to any member or applicant for referral. I
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
likewise order that Respondent maintain its hiring hall
records in a public place at the hiring hall for easy
access during a substantial portion of each business day
so that members and applicants for referral-may freely
inspect the records and-satisfy any doubts or fears they
may have about the propriety of referrals made by Re-
spondent I believe the above requirements are necessary
in order to dissipate the suspicion, distrust, and fear that
exists about the referral system because such suspicion,
distrust, and fear has been generated by the misconduct
of Respondent's agents. -
I shall recommend that Respondent make Jim Isbill,
Ed Cate, Ted L. Porter, James C. McDade, and all other
members or applicants for referral whole for, any loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of Respond-
ent's discriminatory referral. practices from 1 March
(when it removed approximately 200 users from active to
inactive referral status for, allegedly failing to comply
with its orally, announced change discussed in Conclu-
sion of Law 4) until such time as its discriminatory prac-
tices cease. I recognize that the Board is reluctant to
allow open-ended. litigation concerning the existence of
possible discriminatees in a backpay hearing. However,, I
believe fundamental fairness requires that the General
Counsel have an opportunity to do so in the instant-case.
It is clear that a wrong cognizable under the.Act has
been established in that members and/or applicants for
referral had their referral cards removed from 'active re-
ferral -status on 1 March because of their failure to
comply with inadequately -announced and newly estab-
lished requirements the General Counsel may not be
able` to establish,"-that' any individuals other than those
named in the complaint were discriminated against, how-
ever, to the extent-any unnamed individuals have lost
any earnings or benefits as a-result of the Respondent's
discrimination, they should be made whole. All backpay
due under the terms of this order shall be computed on a
quarterly basis as described in F W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as computed in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977), see generally Isis
Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).'
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire' record, I issue the followiig recommend-
ed33
ORDER
The Respondent, Teamsters Local Union #519, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of' Teamsters,
Knoxville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Operating its exclusive hiring hall in a discrim'inato--
ry manner.
(b) Orally changing its hiring hall procedures without
giving adequate and timely notice to its members and
other applicants for referral.
(c) Removing from its referral system and refusing to
refer Jim Isbill, Ed Cate, Ted. L. Porter, James C.
McDade, or any other member or applicant for referral
because they failed to comply with an orally instituted
and inadequately announced change in its referral proce-
'dures'and/or because they are union dissidents, associat-
ed with union dissidents, filed unfair labor practice
charges with the National Labor' Relations Board, threat-
ened to'complain to the National Labor Relations Board,
and because they engaged in concerted protected activi-
ties.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing members or applicants for referral
in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Operate its exclusive hiring hall in a nondiscrimina-
tory manner.
(b) Mail a complete written copy of the referral proce-
dures of the hiring hall to all members and applicants for
employment who have utilized the hiring hall since 25
January at their last known address.
(c) Refer Jim Isbill, Ed Cate, Ted L. Porter, James C.
McDade, and other members and applicants for referral
to positions of employment for which they are qualified
on an equal and nondiscriminatory basis.
(d) Make whole Jim Isbill, Ed Cate, Ted L. Porter,
James,C. McDade, and other members and applicants for
referral for any losses they may have suffered by any
reason of the discrimination against them in the manner
set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or it agents all records necessary for compliance
with this Order.' '
(f) Place the hiring hall records in a public place at the
hiring hall for easy access during a substantial part of
each business day and freely allow members and other
applicants for referral to inspect such records.
(g) Post at all places where-notices to members or ap-
plicants for referral are posted- copies' of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10,
after being signed by Respondent's authorized represent-
ative, shall be posted by the Respondent :immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 • consecutive days in
conspictious places including all places where notices to
members and applicants for referral are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.34
(h) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
33 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46'of the Board's 34 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Rules and Regulations , the findings, .conclusions , and recommended ' Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
poses al Labor Relations Board "