Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 125 (O'Neil Construction, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local 125 (O'Neil Construction, Inc.) and
George Chako. Case 8-CB-4324
March 19, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On December 11, 1981, Administrative Law
Judge Stephen J. Gross issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions and sup-
porting briefs, and the Respondent filed an answer-
ing brief opposing the General Counsel's excep-
tions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, fintd-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Laborers' In-
ternational Union of North America, Local 125,
Youngstown, Ohio, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
' The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to certain
credibility findings made by the Administrative law Judge. I is the
Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of
all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incor-
recl. Standard Dry ' Wall Products, Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) we have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Member Jenkins would compute interest on the hackpa 5 ordered
herein based upon the formula set fiorth in his separate opinion in OJImp:c
Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB 146. 148 (1980).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. INTRODUCTION
STEPHEN J. GROSS, Administrative Law Judge: On
October 17, 1980, O'Neil Construction, Inc. (hereafter
called OCI or the Company), sought to hire George
Chako for employment as a laborer at a site in Youngs-
town, Ohio. But an official of Local 125 of the Laborers'
International Union of North America threatened a strike
if OCI put Chako to work, and the Company refrained
from employing him. That led Chako to file an unfair
labor practice charge against Local 125. On November
3, 1980, OCI made another attempt to hire Chako; Local
125 again threatened a strike if OCI hired him; and OCI
again refrained from doing so. (Hereafter all dates will
refer to 1980 unless otherwise specified.) Chako subse-
quently amended his charge against Local 125.
On December 12 the Regional Director for Region 8
of the National Labor Relations Board issued a com-
plaint alleging that: (1) On October 17 Local 125 caused
or attempted to cause OCI to terminate the employment
of Chako because of his lack of membership in Local
125, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act; and (2) on November 3, 1980, an official of Local
125 "informed [Chako] that he would not accept
[Chako's] transfer request to the Respondent because he
had filed charges against the Respondent with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board," and that Local 125 there-
by violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
Local 125 denied those allegations and the case went
to hearing before me in Youngstown, Ohio, on October
1, 1 9 8 1 .' Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel
and by Respondent. 2
II. THE APPL ICABLE COLt ECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS
OCI is a masonry contractor headquartered in West
Middlesex, Pennsylvania. As touched on above, in 1980
one of OCl's projects involved work at a site in Youngs-
town, Ohio. One of the employer associations to which
OCI belongs is the Mason Contractors Association of
America, Inc. That association, in turn, is party to a col-
lective-bargaining agreement (hereafter called the Inter-
national agreement) with the Laborers' International
Union of North America. There is no dispute that OCI
considers itself bound by the International agreement,
and that the agreement is, at least on its face, applicable
to OCI's Youngstown project.
OCI is also a member of the Builders Association of
Eastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. That associ-
ation is a party to a collective-bargaining agreement (the
Local agreement) with Laborers' Union Locals 125 and
935. (Local 125 has jurisdiction over the Youngstown
area. Local 935's jurisdiction is over neighboring
Warren, Ohio.) The Local agreement also is, on its face,
applicable to OCI's Youngstown project.
As will be discussed below, from the start of the
hearing in this proceeding it was clear that OCI and
Local 125 disagreed about whether provisions in the In-
ternational agreement conflicted with provisions in the
Local agreement, and, if they did, which agreement con-
trolled. On brief the General Counsel raised the further
issue of whether OCI was bound at all by the Local
agreement. And the record does reflect that: (1) An OCI
supervisor testified that he was unsure whether OCI had
T' he parties agree that OCI is "an employer engaged in commerce
withilt the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act," and that Loical
125 is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act
' The General Counsel's motion to amend the transcript is granted
260 NLRB No. 155
1082
LABORERS' LOCAL 125
delegated to the Builders Association OCI's right to bar-
gain with Local 125 and that OCI is "not a signatory to"
the Local agreement; 3 (2) OCl's president told a Local
125 official that the Company was "coming in" to
Youngstown under the International agreement; and (3)
according to the testimony of a Local 125 official, an-
other representative of that Union told him that an offi-
cial of the Builders Association said that OCI "didn't
belong to the Association."
But I find that OCI was subject to the Local agree-
ment. To begin with, OCl's membership in the Builders
Association is not in doubt. The complaint alleges that
OCI is a member, an OCI supervisor testified that it is a
member, and the only testimony about OCI not being a
member of the Association was the product of multiple
hearsay. As for OCI being subject to the terms of the
Local agreement, the agreement itself specifies that "The
term 'Employer' shall be construed to include not only
the Builders Association of Eastern Ohio and Western
Pennsylvania but also each member of the Association."
(Emphasis supplied.)4 Under these circumstances a find-
ing that OCI was not an "employer" within the meeting
of the Local agreement and, accordingly, subject to the
agreement's terms, would have to rest on very clear evi-
dence indeed that the agreement did not apply to OCI.
But there is no such evidence in the record. Moreover,
officials of OCI complied with at least some terms of the
Local agreement, met without protest with officials of
Local 125, and went to arbitration with Local 125 under
the terms of the arbitration provisions of the Local
agreement.
In sum, OCI (through the Builders Association) and
Local 125 were parties to the Local agreement; and
Local 125 was the collective-bargaining representative of
the laborers employed by OCI at OCI's Youngstown
jobsite.
I11. THE OCTOBER 17 INCIDENT
A. The Dispute Over "Key Man" Issues
The International agreement and the Local agreement
both contain provisions relating to "key men." A key
man, in turn, is an employee from outside the geographi-
cal area where the work is being performed whom the
employer has previously employed and whom the em-
ployer wants to bring into the area to work on the
project at hand. Eugene O'Neil, OCI's president, and
Andrew Jackson, business manager of Local 125 (and,
accordingly, the Local's chief executive officer), had at
least one and perhaps two meetings prior to their con-
frontation over Chako. At the meeting or meetings
O'Neil and Jackson got into a dispute about the key men
that OCI wanted to bring into Youngstown. In part
those disputes involved the number of key men OCI
wanted to use. The result was that the relationship be-
tween OCI and Local 125 was focused on key man
issues. OCl's officials felt that the Local was unduly re-
strictive in demanding that the Company get its employ-
ees from the Youngstown area. And the union officials
3 Errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected
' Jit Exh I
thought that the Company was attempting to use the
loosely worded key man provisions of the International
agreement to avoid hiring workers from the Youngstown
area.' (It should be noted that Local 125 did not operate
an exclusive hiring hall, and that the Union agreed that
OCI did not have to obtain its employees through the
Union.)
B. OCI Decides To Hire Chako
Dave O'Neil, Eugene O'Neil's son, is in charge of
OCI's Youngstown site. By October 10 Dave O'Neil had
concluded that one of the laborers working at the job-
site, a Local 125 member named Lamont Stevens, was
performing inadequately. Dave O'Neil determined to dis-
charge Stevens, and some bricklayers employed at the
site by OCI recommended that the company hire Chako
as a replacement for Stevens. On October 15 OCI ceased
employing Stevens. While Stevens was in fact terminated
because of what Dave O'Neil considered to be Stevens'
inadequacies, O'Neil told Stevens that he was "laid off";
i.e., let go because OCI had insufficient work to keep
him employed. As O'Neil put it: "I laid him off for the
simple fact that I don't like to fire people. It creates too
much of a fight and hassle." 6
A day later O'Neil called Chako and told him to
report to work the following morning, October 17.
Chako had previously told O'Neil that he was a member
of neighboring Local 935, rather than Local 125, but that
Local 935 members regularly work in Local 125's area
and that accordingly he would not need to transfer to
Local 125. O'Neil nonetheless told Chako to check in at
the Local 125 union hall.
Chako did report to the hall and talked there to
Martin Mason, secretary-treasurer of Local 125. Chako
asked to transfer to Local 125 (from Local 935), but
Mason said that no transfer was required. And in fact the
record is clear that the practice of Local 125 was to
permit members of Local 935 to work in its jurisdiction
without transfer. Chako reported that to Dave O'Neil,
but O'Neil was not satisfied. He told Chako to return to
the union hall and to advise the Union that Chako in-
tended to work for OCI. Chako complied. Mason again
said that Chako did not have to transfer to Local 125.
But he went on to say that, as far as working for OCI, "I
don't think that you can do it because [OCI] got men
laid off."'
' All parties agree that OCI is "an employer engaged primarily in the
building and construction industry." that its employees "are engaged in
the building and construction industry." and that the Laborers' Interna-
tional Union and l.ocal 125 are labor organizations "of which building
and construction employees are members." within the meaning of Sec
8(f) of the Act Accordingly the two agreements at issue here could
properly provside "for priority in opportunities in employment based upon
length of serice in the particular geographical area"; id. at subsec
(4)
At the hearing, and on brief. the parties often referred to OCI having
laid off ito members of local 125 But the Company's payroll records
(G C Exh 2) show that during the relevant period the Company ceased
employing onls one cmplo.,eer Stevens
:Testimony (of witness Mason Chako testified that he did not "remem-
ber anybohds telling Ime that thes had men on lay off" I credit
N1asion
1083
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mason's comment about men on layoff was a reference
to Stevens and an implicit reference to article XVI of the
Local agreement which provides, in part, that: "When
men are laid off for lack of work they shall be called
back to that job in the same order in which they were
originally hired. " '
C. The Strike Threat
On October 16 or early in the morning of October 17
the Local 125 steward working for OCI at the Youngs-
town jobsite notified Jackson (Local 125's business man-
ager) that "there was a man coming in and they want to
put him on and he didn't belong to our local." 9 Jackson
went up to the jobsite. At the site Jackson first told
Chako (whom Jackson knew to be a Local 935 member
who had often worked in the Youngstown area) that the
Local was not going to permit Chako to work for OCI
until the Company "gets some more men out here" (re-
ferring to members of Local 125).'0 Jackson then met
with Dave O'Neil, asked O'Neil how Chako came to be
hired by OCI, said that Chako was not going to be al-
lowed to work for OCI, threatened to call a strike if the
Company did put Chako to work, and told O'Neil that
the reason for the Union's position was that the Compa-
ny had already employed its allotment of key men.
D. The Import of Jackson 's Comments
It is not entirely clear, even to Jackson, why he re-
ferred to key man issues when talking to O'Neil about
Chako. But an onlooker familiar with the applicable col-
lective-bargaining agreements would have had to assume
that Jackson had either of two things in mind.
One possibility relates to article V of the Local agree-
ment. That provision states, in respect to work in
Youngstown:
All members of the Builders Association . . . fur-
ther agree to hire members of [Local 125] when
available providing such . . . union members pos-
sess the skills required by the Employer. Should the
Employer deem it necessary to hire other than
available members of the local union, the Employer
shall notify the Union prior to such employment.
The same agreement provides that "non-resident employ-
ers" (such as OCI) may bring with them key men from
outside Local 125's area. But the agreement strictly
limits the number of key men an employer may bring
in-the fewer the total number of employees on the job,
the fewer the number of key men allowed. Thus, one
way of construing Jackson's remarks is that: (I) Jackson
interpreted the contract as requiring OCI to hire Local
125 members unless an employee could fit within the key
man provisions of the contract; and (2) OCI already had
' J. Exh I. The article also provides: "'f an cmployee is fired for just
cause . his seniority shall be terminated immediatels"
9 Testimony of witness Jackson
'O Testimony of witness Jackson
" Respondent's witness Southerland testified that he overheard Jack-
son tell Chako that Chako could lnot work for OCI "because there's men
laid off." But Southerland's version differs markedly from both Jacks on'
and Chako's And Chako credibly testified that Southerland 'ais not
within earshot of the Jackson-Chako exchange
its quota of key men. (This interpretation would reflect
the steward's complaint that Chako "didn't belong to our
local,")
But the other possible meaning to be attributed Jack-
son's remarks to O'Neil has to do with the seniority pro-
vision of the Local agreement (see fn. 8, above, and the
related text). Jackson's comments may have simply been
his way of indicating that, in his view: (I) Chako could
not be employed by OCI under normal hiring procedures
because Stevens, who was senior to Chako under the
terms of the Local agreement, was on layoff; and (2)
while Chako could nonetheless be employed by OCI if a
key man slot was available, no such slot was.
Both Chako and Dave O'Neil, without pressing Jack-
son for a further explanation, concluded that Jackson
was telling them that Chako could not work for OCI
simply because Chako was not a member of Local 125.
While O'Neil was upset about Jackson's stance, he was
unwilling to risk a strike. He therefore told Chako that
OCI could not hire him under the circumstances.
IV. THE NOVEMBER 3 INCIDENT
With Chako unavailable, OCI brought Stevens back
from his "layoff." But after six more workdays the Com-
pany again concluded that Stevens' productivity was not
up to OCI's standards, and on October 27 Stevens was
again let go, this time permanently. It is clear that at that
point the Local 125 officials knew that OCI was dissatis-
fied with Stevens' performance. Nonetheless, Stevens
was, as a technical matter, laid off, not discharged for
cause. 2 A few days later, and independent of the Com-
pany's termination of Stevens, Chako filed an unfair
labor practice charge against Local 125 (see sec. I,
above).
Stevens' termination again left the Company one labor-
er short. And both Dave and Eugene O'Neil still wanted
to hire Chako. They arrived at the following plan: The
laborer foreman on the site, Nicholas Butchkoskie,
whom OCI had brought in from Pennsylvania, was an
outstanding worker but had shortcomings as a foreman.
Since the O'Neils had heard that Chako had some super-
visory experience, they decided to move Butchkoskie
down to laborer and to bring Chako in as a foreman.
From Eugene O'Neil's viewpoint, Local 125 would be
unable to prevent the Company from taking that action
since the choice of a foreman is-"always management's
prerogative. I can change foremen five times a week if I
want to. It's not a union question. . . . I don't care what
Local he's in." (While the duties of a laborer foreman at
OCI were not detailed, the parties stipulated that the po-
t 1he nrily itnesses with firsthand know ledge of OCl's relationship
wvilh Stesens cere the tiw m O'Neils. I'he testimony of both O'Neils sug-
ge'st that OCI laid off Stelvens once, not twice. but that that layoff was
permanent tBoth, however, admitted to heing unsure of the precise facts
regarding the dates of Stevens' problems with OCI And the Company's
pay roll records shows that. as indicated ahbove Stevens had two periods
of employment with OCI What that adds up to is a lack of clarity about
vsheher OCI told Stevncsc on October 27 that he was being laid off. or
s:as being fired fior cause In viet oLf Dae O()'Neil's testimony that OCl
did not fire St'ccns. I have resolved the nmatter hy cosncluding that OCI
"laid lfr" Stlesln, hi th n Octob her 15 and (on October 27
1084
I.A()ORF RS' I.()CAL. 125
sition was a supervisory one within the meaning of the
Act.)
Sometime no later than early November 3, and before
either Eugene or Dave O'Neil had talked to anyone else
about their idea of bringing Chako on as a foreman.
Jackson (Local 125's business manager) showed up at
OCI's jobsite, mentioned to Dave O'Neil that Chako had
filed charges against Local 125, and then told O'Neil that
"he didn't want Chako anywhere near the job one way
or the other because of the charges that he filed.""'
Dave O'Neil called Eugene O'Neil about Jackson's
comments. Eugene O'Neil suggested that Dave go ahead
with the plan to hire Chako as foreman, and that the
way to handle Jackson's concern about the charges
Chako had filed was to have Chako go down to the
union hall and agree to drop the charges.
Dave O'Neil then got in touch with Chako (on
November 3) and told Chako that the Company wanted
to hire Chako as a "key man," its "labor foreman,"' 4 but
that Chako would have to ask to be transferred into
Local 125, and that Chako should tell the union officials
that he would drop his charges. Chako agreed.
Chako promptly told Mason that he had been offered
the labor foreman job at OCI and that-"I came down
to transfer my book and I was dropping charges." But,
said Chako, "Mr. Mason said that he would not transfer
my book and that I wouldn't work out of that hall be-
cause of the reason that I presented charges against
them." 15
Chako returned to the OCI jobsite and told Dave
O'Neil about Mason's position.
Eugene O'Neil and Mason had a telephone conversa-
tion about the Company's plan to hire Chako as a fore-
man either just before or just after Chako visited the
union hall. Mason made no mention to O'Neil about
Chako having filed charges against Local 125. Rather,
Mason focused on what he felt was O'Neil's continued
effort to avoid his contractual obligations by misusing
the key man provisions of the International agreement.
He accordingly told O'Neil that the Union would shut
down the job if the Company put Chako to work. O'Neil
was, as before, unwilling to risk a strike, and that ended
the Company's attempts to hire George Chako. t
V. AlI EGFI) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The October 17 Incident
A union may not demand that an employer give its
members preference in hiring; e.g., General Teamsters
Local 439, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Los Angeles-
Seattle Motor Express. Inc.), 172 NLRB 2041 (1968). But
I cannot conclude that Jackson's comments on October
" Testimony of witness Dave O'Neil
" Testimon. of . itness Chako
Is Masan testified that his response r'as "Chako. I don'l sant to hai e
anything io say to ':ou You filed charge,. and I'm nom going to say an:-
thing about that " I credit Chako
'" At Local 125's request. a panel of Builders Association and l oIal
125 representati.ces considered the contractual obligations of OCI and the
Union regarding key men, seniority of emplosees. and foremnre The
panel deadlocked White procedures were asallable to take the dead-
locked dispute to a single arhitrator, no party pursued that a enue
17, to either Chako or Dave O'Neil, were made with an
intent to cause OCI to discriminate in hiring in favor of
Local 125 members. Nor can I conclude that those com-
ments by Jackson could reasonably have been deemed an
objection to the Company's employment of Chako be-
cause of Chako's lack of membership in Local 125. Jack-
son never said that his problem with OCI's employment
of Chako was Chako's lack of membership in Local 125.
And the fact of the matter is that the Company's attempt
to hire Chako while Stevens was on layoff was at least
arguably in contravention of the Local agreement. In ad-
dition, Mason had specifically advised Chako that OCI
had an employee on layoff and that that stood in the
way of the Company hiring Chako.
It is true that the Company had claimed that it was
"coming in" to Youngstown under the International
agreement. But OCI knew that Local 125 insisted on the
applicability of the Local agreement. And even if the
Local agreement had in fact not been applicable, it
would not appear to be a violation of either Section
8(b)(l)(A) or of Section 8(b)(2)-the only two provisions
of the Act that the General Counsel alleges were violat-
ed by Local 125-for Local 125 to have insisted that an
employer recall laid-off employees prior to hiring new-
comers. 17
I accordingly conclude that the complaint should be
dismissed to the extent that it alleges that Local 125 vio-
lated the Act in its actions on or about October 17.
B. The November 3 Incident
Local 125's coercive statements: A union violates
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when it threatens an em-
ployee-either directly or through an employer or pros-
pective employer-because the employee filed an unfair
labor practice charge against the Union. 8 Thus, Local
125 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when Jackson
told Dave O'Neil that "he didn't want Chako anywhere
near the job one way or the other because of the charges
that he filed," and when Mason told Chako that Chako
could not transfer into Local 125 and could not work
out of its hall because Chako had filed charges against
the Union.
Local 125's unwillingness to process Chako's transfer:
The General Counsel's brief suggests that on or about
November 3 Local 125 refused to allow Chako to trans-
fer into that local, and that that prevented OCI from
hiring Chako (as a foreman). The evidence does not sup-
port that proposition. As discussed earlier, Local 125
treated members of Local 935 as though they were
Local 125 members. Accordingly, it was not Chako's
lack of membership in Local 125 that kept OCI from
hiring Chako as a foreman. '9
" See Ohio Vatlehv Carpenters District Council. Local Union Vo. 415.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. .4FL-CIO (Cin-
-innati kirrure'. Inc.), 226 NLRB 1032 (1976).
' The parties have not cited any cases directly on point and I have not
otherwise clime across any Numerous analogous cases. however, leave
little room foir doubt ahout the matter For a recent one see. e g Intmrna-
tuonal Longshoremeni .Asocziation. Local 1329 (Metals Processing Corp.).
252 NL.RB 229 (1980)
k Anytime a union makes a strike threat over an employer's attempt to
hire a supervisor. an 8(b)l1)(B) issue is lecessarily raised But the cornm-
Contrinued
1085
DEFCISIONS OF NATIIONAL lABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That, perhaps, should be the end of the matter: The
only reason OCI refrained from hiring Chako on
November 3 was because Mason told O'Neil that OCI
faced a strike if the Company hired Chako; and neither
the complaint nor the General Counsel's brief alleges
that that strike threat was made for unlawful reasons.
But OCI's failure to hire Chako on November 3 was the
subject of considerable testimony and at the hearing all
parties proceeded as though Local 125's motivation in
making the November 3 strike threat was in issue. While
the question is a close one, my conclusion is that under
all the circumstances it is appropriate for the Board to
consider whether, due to Local 125's motivation in
making the strike threat, the Union thereby violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The November 3 strike threat violated the Act: It will be
recalled that the backdrop to the strike threat that Mason
made to O'Neil on or about November 3 was: (1) OCI
had recently laid off a member of Local 125, Stevens, for
a second time; (2) Mason knew that while Stevens was
technically "laid off," in fact OCI had gotten rid of him
because of his unsatisfactory performance, not because of
a lack of available work; (3) 2 weeks earlier OCI had un-
successfully attempted to hire Chako as a laborer; (4)
Mason knew that O'Neil was unacquainted with Chako;
(5) Mason and Jackson had just told Chako and Dave
O'Neil (or were about to tell them) that Chako would
not be allowed to work in the Youngstown area because
of the charges Chako had filed against Local 125.
Given these circumstances it could be that Mason
made the strike threat to O'Neil solely because he felt
that OCl's plan to hire Chako as a foreman was simply a
device to get around the provisions of the Local agree-
ment that gave Stevens seniority rights. (And there is
little doubt that, from Mason's viewpoint, the plan to
hire Chako as a foreman appeared peculiar, given
O'Neil's lack of prior acquaintance with Chako.) More-
over, OCI would might well have violated the seniority
requirements of the Local agreement if Chako had been
hired as a foreman and Butchkoskie had been moved
down to laborer-since Butchkoskie would thereby have
filled the slot that arguably belonged to Stevens.
But that interpretation of Mason's motivation would
have to be predicated on the assumption that Jackson's
and Mason's comments about Chako's charges were idle
bluffs that the Local had no intention to effectuate.
There is no reason to make that assumption. In addition,
given Local 125's running dispute with OCI about the
applicability of the Local agreement and about Stevens'
performance, it is hard to understand why Mason would
not have referred to Stevens' seniority if that was the
sole basis for Mason's unwillingness to allow OCI to hire
Chako as on November 3. All in all, I can only conclude
that: (1) Chako's unfair labor practice charges against
Local 125 played a role in the Union's decision to pre-
clude OCI from hiring Chako; and (2) the record fails to
indicate that Local 125 would have sought to keep OCI
plaint does not allege a violation of that provision and the General Coun-
sel did not discuss the issue in brief Moreover, the record fails to indi-
cate whether Chako, as an OCI foreman, would have been a "representa-
tive" of the Company "for the purpose of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances
from hiring Chako on November 3 even if Chako had
not filed his charges against Local 125.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Local 125 of the Laborers' International Union of
North America is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. OCI is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2) and (6) of the Act.
3. Local 125 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by:
(a) telling OCI that the Union did not want OCI to
employ Charging Party George Chako because of the
unfair labor practice charge that Chako had filed against
the Union; (b) telling Chako that he would not be al-
lowed to transfer into Local 125 and would not be al-
lowed to work out of the Union's hall because of the
charges Chako had filed against the Union; and (c) by,
because of the charge that Chako had filed against the
Union, threatening to call a strike against OCI on or
about November 3, 1980, if OCI employed Chako.
4. The unfair labor practices referred to above affect
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(7) and 10(a)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Local 125 be ordered to cease
and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices re-
ferred to above and from any like or related acts.
I shall also recommend that Local 125 be required to
make George Chako whole for all loss of earnings result-
ing from the unfair labor practice described above. Loss
of earnings shall be computed as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
on Chako's lost earnings (see Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)), to be computed as pre-
scribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).
Finally, the recommended Order will require Local
125 to post an appropriate notice.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, I hereby issue the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER 20
The Respondent, Laborers' International Union of
North America, Local 125, Youngstown, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining and coercing any employee in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 because the em-
ployee filed an unfair labor practice charge against the
Union.
(b) Causing, or attempting to cause, an employer to
discharge, or refrain from employing, an employee be-
"' Ii the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
1086
I.ABORERS' I.OCAL 125
cause the employee filed an unfair labor practice char-ge
against the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing any employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make George Chako whole for all loss of earnings
resulting from Local 125's commission of an unfair labor
practice directed at him by payment of the sum of
money to which he is entitled in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this Decision.
(b) Post at its business office and at all other places
where notices to its members are customarily posted
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 '
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 8, after being signed by a repre-
sentative of Local 125, shall be posted immediately upon
their receipt and be maintained by Local 125 for 60 con-
secutive days. Local 125 shall take reasonable steps to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, Awhat
steps Local 125 has taken to comply with the Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed in all other respects.
21 In the event that thi, Order is enforced bh a Judgmenl of a Untiled
States Court of Appeals. the words in hie notice reading "Poslted ho
Order of the National I.abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pur,u-
ant to a Judgment of the Unllied States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NoTicic. To MEMBERS
POSTi ED Bt ORDIR oF I'HI
NATIONAt. LABOR RFI ATIONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and
has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry
out the order of the Board and to abide by the follow-
ing:
Wi wll NOI, because an employee filed an
unfair labor practice charge against the Union, tell
the employee that he or she may not join the Union
or work out of the Union's hall.
WE Wll I. NOT cause, or attempt to cause, an em-
ployer to discharge, or to refrain from employing,
an employee because the employee filed an unfair
labor practice charge against the Union.
WE wlll NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
\WV. wit I make whole George Chako for all loss
of earnings he may have suffered, with interest, as a
result of our unlawful action against him.
LOCAl 125, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAl
UNION Oi NORTH AMERICA
108X7