Electrical Workers IBEW Local 575 (Coleman Electric)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 66 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 575, AFL-CIO (Coleman Electric Compa-
ny) and Arvil Stevens. Case 9-CB-5579
27 April 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
On 26 October 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
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
conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 575,
AFL-CIO, Portsmouth, Ohio, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the Order.
l 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 Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
s In affirming the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(bXI)(XA) by requiring travelers to resubmit letters from their home
locals as to their qualifications, we find it unnecessary to rely on the testi-
mony of Caroline Harris.
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge. An
unfair labor practice charge was filed in this case on
May 17, and a complaint issued on July 1, 1983. A hear-
ing was conducted in Portsmouth, Ohio, on August 18
and 19, 1983. The General Counsel alleges that Respond-
ent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National
Labor Relations Act by, in the operation of its hiring
hall facility, requiring certain union members who are
"travelers" from other locals to obtain from their respec-
tive home locals every 6 months letters demonstrating
that they have passed a journeyman's test and have 4
years' experience in the industry, in order to sign Re-
spondent Union's out-of-work referral list. The General
Counsel further alleges that Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(IXA) of the Act by refusing to permit such
union members to review the out-of-work list maintained
270 NLRB No. 20
by Respondent Union for referrals. Respondent Union
denies that it has violated the Act as alleged.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by counsel, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent Union is admittedly a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as alleged.
Coleman Electric Company is admittedly an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, as alleged. Coleman Electric
and the Union, at all times pertinent here, have been par-
ties to an agreement covering Coleman's employees,
which agreement provides, inter alia, that the Union will
be the sole and exclusive source of referral of applicants
for employment. (See generally Jt. Exhs. 1 and 2.) See
further, as stipulated at the hearing (Tr. 7-11),
the Union had a policy under its referral procedure
which required applicants for referral [from sister
locals] to submit documentation as to their qualifica-
tions when they were off the out-of-work list for a
period of six months or more. ... And, that docu-
mentation is the status of that applicant as a jour-
neyman wireman, meaning that he had either passed
a journeyman wireman's exam or gone through an
approved apprenticeship training program conduct-
ed by a local union of the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers .... Documentation
would be generally in the form of a letter from the
[applicant's] local union.
Arvil Stevens, the Charging Party here, is a member
of a sister local of Respondent Union. Stevens testified
that previously, during mid-1982, he had been referred
by Respondent Union for work at Coleman Electric. His
job at Coleman Electric terminated about January 21,
1983. Consequently, on or about January 27, 1983, he
went to Respondent Union's hall "to sign up on their re-
ferral" or out-of-work list. Stevens recalled:
I [Stevens] went in and Greg Call was there at the
window. I handed him my current dues paying
card, the yellow slip, and I asked him about signing
the book, and he [Call] stated, "Well . . . Arvil I'll
have to have a letter from your local before . . .
you can sign it," and I said, "Greg, I just got done
working seven months for Coleman Electric, and
you've got my vacation money and three percent
assessment, and all . . . I don't know why I need
any proof." Well, he said, "You'll have to get an-
other letter from the local."'
Stevens "left" the hall. He promptly telephoned the busi-
ness agent of his home local, Local 24, in Baltimore,
Maryland, and again requested "another one of those let-
' It is undisputed that Stevens had furnished such documentation or
proof to Respondent Union some seven or more months earlier, before
being referred by the Union to Coleman Electric.
66
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 575 (COLEMAN ELECTRIC)
ters." His local business agent agreed to have such a
letter "in the mail this afternoon."
Stevens, as he further testified, was required to sign
Respondent Union's "out-of-work" list or "pad" "every
30 days" in order to "keep current." About March 2,
1983, Stevens showed up at the hall to "sign" this docu-
ment or pad. He also discussed with Greg Call "where I
am on.the list" and whether he, Stevens, should be clas-
sified in "group one" or "group two." He again returned
to the hall about March 28 or 29 to sign the list or pad.
He testified, as follows:
Q. And then. . . what occurred?
A.... Greg had taken my card to go in the
back ... when he came back I signed his list, and I
said, "Greg what group have you got me on? . . .
Am I on book one or two?" He said, "Well you're
number 298 or something like that." I said, "Well
... I should be on group one .... Now can I see
that list?" And he said, "Well this is all I can tell
you." . .. I said, "Well last year we went through
this same thing and a Judge ruled that, on request,
we were allowed to see the list.... Why can't I
see it?" And he said, "Well, I don't know. I don't
take care of that."
Stevens left.2
Stevens returned to the hall about the last week of
April and "done the same thing." Again, he questioned
Greg Call as to why he was not in "group one." Call
told Stevens that "you're number 273,"
and he [Call] went ... to the back. . . and he had
come out with a yellow stationery pad . . . and he
held it up and he said, "you're number 273....
I've got you here, Journeyman wireman," and out
on the side, he had certified welder in pencil wrote
with parentheses.
Stevens noted that Greg Call was then standing some 5
to 6 feet away when he "held" up the list, and "there
were several pages turned back." Stevens further noted:
I asked him. . .to see .. what book it was on, if
I could see it, and that's all he did. He just held it
up and said, "Well. . . you're number 273."
Greg Call "held it [the list] back at a distance" of some 5
feet.
Stevens returned to the hall during May and went
through "the same routine." Again, he questioned his
standing and classification on the list. Again, he said:
"Well I'd like to see the book." Greg Call replied: "I
can't help you there." Call, instead, "just told me a
number." And, in June, Stevens while again asking Call
about his standing and classification, asked: "You're sure
I can't see that book?" Call responded: "That's all I can
do .... Just show you this... I'll just tell you where
you're at." And, in July, Stevens again "asked him to see
the book and what book I was on, and I still got the
2 Stevens, in his conversation with Call on or about March 28 or 29,
was referring to an earlier unfair labor practice proceeding against Re-
spondent Union which had been settled by the parties.
same answer, that I'm [Call] sorry and that was about
it." Stevens testified:
Q. ... on each of the occasions you [Stevens]
. . . went to the Union hall, you asked to see the
books of Mr. Call?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did Mr. Call ever permit you to see the
books?
A. I wouldn't even know what the book looked
like . . . the only thing I know was a yellow note-
book pad.
Q. What was it that you signed?
A.... it was just a white paper .... It's laying
... right on the counter ...
Stevens explained that he had asked to "see the books"
because, in his view, "there were people going out to
work . . . laid off after I was .... I had no way of
knowing whether I was being treated fairly or not
Caroline Harris testified that she was employed by Re-
spondent Union as a secretary from 1974 until May 1983.
Harris recalled that Donald Keyser, business manager for
the Union, had instructed her, in part as follows:
I wasn't to talk to the people at the window. I
knew nothing about the referral procedure and I
was to tell them that. And I was not to leave the
book in the window if I had to walk away....
The referral book was attached to a clipboard with
a rubber band around the bottom to secure the
pages so people couldn't look through it.
Harris further recalled that Keyser had explained to her
that the "reason" members of sister locals had to submit
such qualification "letters,"
was to slow down some of the men going to work
... to harass ... travelers . ... This was kind of
a standing joke . . . it would just keep them out of
work a little while longer ....
Keyser, on occasion, named to her those applicants or
"travelers" who he "wanted to hassle or harass," includ-
ing Arvil Stevens, because these applicants
had at some time or other crossed Don [Keyser], or
a local man, or had harassed the Local in his opin-
ion at some time or other.4
' On cross-examination, Stevens was uncertain whether or not he was
in fact permitted to sign the Union's out-of-work liht or pad on or about
January 27, 1983, even without a new letter from his home local. Ste-
vens, after being shown a list or pad, recalled that he apparently did sign
on January 27, 1983. Stevens insisted, however, that Call then stated to
him: "Steven, I'll have to have a letter." In short, Stevens, although un-
clear "whether I signed or not" on January 27, was certain that he was
required, under the Union's procedure, to obtain from his home local a
new letter of his qualifications.
4 On cross-examination, Harris acknowledged, inter alia, that her hus-
band is an electrician who is a "traveler"; that her mother was also em-
ployed by Respondent Union; and that both she and her mother have
been "laid off" by the Union. Harris denied, inter alia, any "bitter feel-
ings" toward the Union because of the layoffs, however, she admitted
being "confused" by the Union's conduct in this and related matters.
67
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Donald Keyser, business manager of Respondent, gen-
erally explained the referral procedures utilized by his
Union. Keyser noted, inter alia, that a "traveler" or
member of a sister local seeking a referral "fills out an
application and we have him sign the out-of-work list."
Also, we "need a letter stating his qualifications," as stip-
ulated supra. When the Union receives such a letter of
qualification from the sister local, according to Keyser,
"we have it attached to his application." There is also a
"card system" which contains the pertinent data for each
applicant. (see generally R. Exhs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10.)
Qualified applicants are then placed on the appropriate
referrals list. They are moved up in priority as referrals
take place. (See generally R. Exhs. 3, 9 and 11.)5
Keyser claimed that, "last year . . . after I found out
that we had so many old records," he decided not to
"keep them that long." About April or May 1982, appli-
cations older than 6, 7, or possibly 8 months were dis-
carded. Prior to April or May 1982, such applications
had been retained and, consequently, "travelers" was not
required to apply every 6 months or so and thus obtain
renewal letters of qualifications. Keyser claimed: "it was
more or less for efficiency, more than anything," that is,
discarding old applications, of travelers. Keyser claimed
that the International, in its "Guide," indicates that such
records should be retained for only 6 months. (Cf. R.
Exh. 4.) And Keyser claimed that Charging Party Ste-
vens in fact lost no referral because of any "delay" in
submitting a new letter of qualification-this "delay" did
not cause him "not to be referred to anty job."6 Further,
Keyser, denied, inter alia, various statements attributed
to him by Caroline Harris. In addition, Keyser testified:
Q. Now with respect to the records that are kept
by the Local Union, have you ever refused Mr. Ste-
vens the right or opportunity to view the out-of-
work list?
A. To my knowledge he never has been refused
that opportunity.
Keyser generally denied having a "policy in effect that
no traveler can see the out-of-work list." He asserted:
"we don't have any policy on that."
Greg Call, assistant business manager and president of
Respondent Union, testified, in part as follows:
Q. Now, on January 27th, 1983, do you recall
your conversation with Mr. Stevens when he signed
the out-of-work list?
A. No, not off-hand. I know that within-it
wasn't last time, Mr. Stevens just signed the book
and that was about it. And, two dates, and I
couldn't tell you what dates they were, between
January 27th and-well, I know it wasn't the last
time, so it had to be between January 27th and June
s The distinction between "group one" and "group two" referrals and
the separate lists maintained by the Union for these classifications is not
alleged here to be discriminatory or othewise unlawful. See Tr. 59-60,
75-76, 212.
a I note that the General Counsel here is not claiming any loss of work
for Stevens as a result of this renewal requirement. See Tr. 212.
20th, I know of at least twice where he has asked to
see the book.
Q. Okay. Well, specifically on January the 27th,
which was the first time he registered after being
unemployed, did you inform him that it would be
necessary for him to submit a letter of qualification
from his Local Union?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And why was that?
A. Mr. Stevens had been working over six
months, he wasn't actively on the referral book. In
other words, he hadn't been signing the book, some-
times we get men that-maybe sign once, and we
never see them again. So we-you know, he natu-
rally drops off, and so there's no use keeping that
record past six months. On the-on Mr. Stevens, he
was not actively on the referal for six months. So,
we required a new letter and application.
Q. Has there ever been an instance that-since
you've maintained the records of the hiring hall,
that someone was denied a referral because they
had not submitted a letter.
A. No, huh-uh.
Q. Has there ever been an instance where some-
one would have been referred if they had a letter
in?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Stevens suffer any loss of employ-
ment as a result of not having a letter on January
27th?
A. No, because the day he signed was the day he
went on, so there isn't any time loss, you know, just
when his turn come up-or, it come up.
Q. And now, do you recall if on April 25th,
1983, you had conversation with Mr. Stevens re-
garding the out-of-work list?
A. Well, I'm sure-you know, I told him, you
know, where he was at and everything. Like I say,
there was two days there I can't-I have so many
men coming in and out it would be hard to tell
what days it actually was. I've had two days where
he was actually asked to see the out-of-work list,
which would be this-you know-paper here. [Wit-
ness demonstrating.]
Q. You don't recall what actual days those were?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. Was anyone present when Mr. Stevens
asked to see the out-of-work list?
A. I think on one day, Greg Tingler.
Q. Do you recall anyone else being present on
any day when Mr. Stevens asked to see the out-of-
work list?
A. I think one other day Don was in the office
there-present.
Q. Have you ever denied Mr. Stevens the right
to see the out-of-work list?
A. No, I have not.
Q. On those two occasions when he requested to
see the out-of-work list, what did you do?
68
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 575 (COLEMAN ELECTRIC)
A. I went and got the list, and brought it out and
held it up, just like I'm doing now [witness demon-
strating], paged back to where his name was and,
you know, just pointed my finger, you know, just
to give the directions to where it was and if it-you
know, if it was 273, well I just, you know, showed
him there it was on 273.
Q. And did Mr. Stevens ever make any other re-
quest with respect to the list?
A. No, huh-uh. Just to see the list here, which I
did twice.
Q. Did he say on those occasions that he wanted
you to hand him the list, or anything like that?
A. No, huh-uh.
Q. Did he make any demand that he see any
other records of the Local Union?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever denied Mr. Stevens or any
other registrant at the Hiring Hall the right to see
that list?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you ever been instructed not to give in-
formation to Mr. Stevens or any other non-members
of Local 575?
A. No I have not.
Q. Have you ever been instructed, or is it a
policy of the Local Union, not to show the out-of-
work list to registrants at the Hiring Hall?
A. No, it is not.
Call, however, acknowledged that when Stevens came
into the Union's hall on or about January 27 to sign the
Union's out-of-work list, Call had Stevens' "card . . . in
his file"; the card showed that Stevens was a "certified
welder in group 2" who had been "sent out previously";
and, further, the card showed in effect that the Union
"previously received from [Stevens'] home local some
documentation that he met the qualifications or require-
ment of group 2."7
7 Virginia Keyser, wife of Business Manager Donald Keyser, periodi-
cally worked at the Union's hall. She denied, inter alia, that her husband
ever instructed her not "to give out information to any travelers." She
claimed that, "when they [members] wanted to look at the book there in
the window, they could look at it any time they wanted to." She was
referring apparently to the book which members signed when they were
out of work. She also claimed that Harris "was jealous because I
[Keyser] was there." She also claimed that she "never heard" Harris
refuse to "give out any information about the referral procedure." Keyser
was asked on cross-examination:
Q. Did the Local keep group lists?
A. I don't know. .... I only took care of the window, and the
men signed the book, and I stamped their cards.
Q. So, you never showed the men the group lists or anything like
that?
A. I couldn't have. I didn't know there was one.
Richard Hill, recording secretary for the Union, claimed that about
May 1982, Harris was "terminated." Keyser told Harris that "after a cer-
tain date ... she'd no longer be needed." Harris assertedly warned
Keyser that "there would be hard feelings." Hill also claimed that the
reason given to Harris by Keyser for Harris' termination was " they were
working against him more than for him." On cross-examination, Hill
claimed, inter alia, "I can't remember exactly what happened there exact-
ly."
Phillip Burton, a member of a sister local of Respondent, claimed that
Greg Call repeatedly "told" him "where" he stood "on the out-of-work
I credit the testimony of Arvil Stevens, as detailed
above. His testimony is substantiated in large part by un-
disputed documentary evidence and admissions by Re-
spondent's witnesses and counsel. Stevens carefully and
fully related his account of the pertinent sequence of
events culminating in the filing of the instant charge. I
am persuaded here, relying also on demeanor, that Ste-
vens is a trustworthy and reliable witness. Likewise, I
credit the testimony of Caroline Harris, as recited above.
I have taken into account her "confusion" or alleged
hostility resulting from her layoff and her mother's layoff
as union employees. Nevertheless, I am persuaded here,
on this full record, that Harris' testimony, as recited
herein, is truthful. In short, her "confusion" or claimed
hostility may be the reason she has readily and fully di-
vulged the information quoted herein; nevertheless, her
testimony, in this respect, is complete, candid, and trust-
worthy. On the other hand, I do not find Donald Keyser
and Greg Call to be forthright and reliable withesses.
Their testimony was at times vague, incomplete, and
evasive. Insofar as the testimony of Donald Keyser and
Call conflicts with the above testimony of Stevens and
Harris, I find, on this record, the testimony of the latter
witnesses to be more complete and reliable.8
Discussion
It is settled law that a union "owes a duty of fair rep-
resentation to employees in the bargaining unit"; this
"duty extends to applicants for employment through [the
union's] hiring hall"; and Section 8(bXl)(A) of the Act
"prohibits labor organizations, when acting in a statutory
representative capacity, from taking action against any
list." Burton assertedly was never denied "the information of where [he]
stood on the list." Burton assertedly was "shown" where "he stood on
the list"; the list "was available ... for inspection." However, Burton,
on cross-examination, admittedly "never asked" to see the out-of-work
list. He was never present "when anybody else has asked to see the list."
Also see the testimony of members Frank Allen, Loren Orooms, and
Lester Kayser.
Oregory Tingler, a member of the Union's executive board, claimed
that about April or May 1983, Stevens "said [to Call] he wanted to sign
the book . . . and then he wanted to see the book." Call "brought the
book around and let him look at it." On crou-examination, Tingler ad-
mitted that "during this conversation" between Call and Stevens, he
"could [not] see them"-the only thing [he had] observed was when Mr.
Call came back around and got the list."
Randy Bailey, a member of the Union, also claimed .hat Harris once
"told" him on the telephone "that she had been terminated from the
Local" and "her mother" also had "been terminated." Harris sought his
assistance. Bailey refused. Harris assertedly then warned that "she had
enough to hang us all."
William Strang Jr., an executive board member of the Union, claimed
that Harris also sought his assistance when her mother was terminated.
He refused and she assertedly threatened: "Well, I'll get Don Keyser, I'll
hang him."
Michael Reed, a business manager of a sister local, generally denied,
inter alia, hearing Harris and/or Keyser discussing any limitation of cer-
tain referrals during the visit or visits to Respondent's hall.
s Much of the remaining testimony, noted and outlined supra, is essen-
tially collateral or does not in any significant or material manner assist in
resolving the narrow issues raised here. In any event, insofar as the testi-
mony of Virginia Keyser, Richard Hill, Randy Bailey, William Strang,
Mike Reed, Phillip Burton, Frank Allen, Loren Orooms, Lester Kayser,
and Gregory Tingler, as noted supra, conflicts with that of Stevens or
Harris, I find the testimony of Stevens and Harris to be more complete,
forthright, and trustworthy. The testimony of the former witnesses is in
large part incomplete, fragmentary, and vague.
69
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee upon considerations or classifications which
are irrelevant, invidious or unfair." See generally Iron
Workers Local 433 (AGC of California), 228 NLRB 1420,
1438-39 (1977), and cases cited. The General Counsel
does not contend here that Respondent Union's hiring
hall procedures or classification system is unlawful; nor
does he contend that employee Stevens, the Charging
Party, was improperly classified or in fact discriminatori-
ly treated in referrals. Instead, the General Counsel
argues (Br. 10) that "the requirement that travelers . . .
resubmit letters from their home locals "as to their quali-
fications . . . if they have been off the out-of-work list
more than six months, is arbitrary and discriminatory," in
violation of Section 8(bXlXA) of the Act. I agree.
The credible and essentially undisputed evidence of
record shows here that Respondent Union-in requiring
travelers from sister locals to resubmit to Respondent let-
ters restating their qualifications--was acting in an arbi-
trary, unreasonable, and discriminatory manner. This re-
submission impediment or obstacle, placed in the path of
the travelers who sought the use of Respondent Union's
exclusive hiring hall facility, did not further any reasona-
ble or legitimate objective of the Union. Indeed, as union
representative Call acknowledge when he inspected the
referral "card" of Charging Party Stevens during Janu-
ary 1983, it was apparent to him that Stevens previously
had submitted such a letter of qualification and had been
sent out to work. To require Stevens, and other travel-
ers, to go through this motion again, under the circum-
stances present here, is unreasonable, discriminatory, and
unfair. This requirement, not justified here, was plainly
calculated to harass travelers from sister locals. As
former union secretary Harris credibly explained, this re-
submission requirement "was kind of a standing joke"-
"it would just keep them out of work a little while
longer."
Respondent Union, by requiring such resubmission, has
violated Section 8(b)(1)(XA) of the Act as alleged.
Further, it is also settled law that a union's "arbitrary
refusal to comply" with an employee's "reasonable and
manageable request for job referral information" affect-
ing his employment also violates Section 8(bXIXA) of
the Act. See generally Operating Engineers Local 324
(AGC of Michigan), 226 NLRB 587 (1976). For, as the
Board explained (AGC of Michigan, id. at 587),
. .. inherent in a union's duty of fair representation
is an obligation to deal fairly with an employee's re-
quest for information as to his relative position on
the out-of-work register ....
Charging Party Stevens, having previously charged Re-
spondent Union with improper conduct in the operation
of its hiring hall, and concerned that he may not be in
the proper classification and was not being referred by
number, reasonably and in good faith requested an op-
portunity to see the register or list. His repeated requests
were denied. On one occasion, a union representative
held up what purported to be the referral list to be in-
spected at a distance of some 5 or 6 feet. Under the cir-
cumstances present here, Respondent Union unjustifiably
refused to permit Stevens to inspect the referral list of
register, as requested, in violation of Section 8(b)(IXA)
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Union is a labor organization as alleged.
2. Coleman Electric is an employer engaged in com-
merce as alleged.
3. Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act by requiring travelers (members of sister locals) to
resubmit letters from their home locals as to their qualifi-
cations demonstrating that they have passed a journey-
man wireman's examination and have 4 years' experience
in the trade, if they have been off the Union's out-of-
work list more than 6 months, in order to be permitted
to sign the Union's out-of-work list and, further, by re-
fusing reasonable requests to permit such travelers to in-
spect and review the Union's out-of-work list and regis-
ter.
4. The unfair labor practices found above affect com-
merce as alleged.
REMEDY
To remedy the unfair labor practices found above, Re-
spondent Union will be directed to cease and desist from
engaging in such conduct, or like or related conduct, and
to post the attached notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed9
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 575, AFL-CIO, Portsmouth, Ohio,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Requiring travelers (members of sister locals) to re-
submit letters from their home locals as to their qualifica-
tions, demonstrating that they have passed a journeyman
wireman's examination and have 4 years' experience in
the industry, if they have been off the Union's out-of-
work list more than 6 months, in order to be permitted
to sign the Union's out-of-work list.
(b) Refusing reasonable requests by such travelers to
inspect and review the Union's out-of-work list and reg-
ister.
(c) In any like or related manner interfere with, re-
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its offices, facilities, hiring hall, and meeting
places copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, s provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poes.
n' If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
Continued
70
ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 575 (COLEMAN ELECTRIC)
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
tional Labor Relations Board" shal read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT, in the operation of our hiring hall facil-
ity, require travelers (members of sister locals) to resub-
mit letters from their home locals as to their qualifica-
tions, demonstrating that they have passed a journeyman
wireman's examination and have 4 years' experience in
the industry, if they have been off our out-of-work list
more than 6 months, in order to permit such travelers to
sign out out-of-work list.
WE WILL NOT refuse reasonable requests by such trav-
elers to inspect and review our out-of-work list and reg-
ister.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 575, AFL-CIO
71