Laborers Local 252 (Seattle & Tacoma Chapter AGC)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 1358 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local 252, AFL-CIO (Seattle and Tacoma Chap-
ters of the Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc.) and Robert E. Gray. Case 19-CB-
2781
December 21, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On June 14, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,I and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law
Judge, to modify the remedy so that interest is to be
computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 3 and to adopt her
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Laborers' Inter-
national Union of North America, Local 252, AFL-
CIO, Tacoma, Washington, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
I In finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(X)(A) of the Act by
failing to deal fairly with Gray's request for information about hiring hall
rules, the Administrative Law Judge relied on a case in which Chairman
Fanning dissented, i.e., Local No. 324. International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO (Michigan Chapter. Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc.), 226 NLRB 587 (1976). Chairman Fanning agrees with the
Administrative Law Judge's finding a violation herein. He distinguishes this
case from Local No. 324 because there the requested information was given
but not in the form in which it was requested, whereas here the information
was refused because Gray was not a member of Respondent and had filed
unfair labor practice charges with the Board.
The record shows that Gray was terminated on April 30, 1976, and not on
May 30, 1976, as indicated by the Administrative Law Judge.
2 We reject Respondent's contention that the amended complaint, issued
by the General Counsel on March 24, 1977, is barred by the limitations
proviso to Sec. 10(b) of the Act. That proviso has no bearing on the date a
complaint is issued. It only bars issuance of a complaint based upon unfair
labor practices occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the
charge with the Board. Here, the allegation in the amended complaint
alleges misconduct the first part of July 1976, while the charge upon which
233 NLRB No. 195
the amended complaint rests was filed on October 28, 1976; the alleged
violation thus clearly falls within the 10(b) period. And while the above
allegation was not specifically alleged in the charge, it clearly is related to
issues raised therein and in General Counsel's original complaint. Finally.
Respondent did not raise the 10(b) issue either as an affirmative defense or
at the heanng. In all these circumstances we find Respondent's defense
wholly without ment. Glazier Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., 209 NLRB
1152, 1153, fn. 1(1975).
3 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V. S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in Seattle, Washington, on
April 5 and 6, 1977. The charge was filed by Gray on
October 28, 1976, and served on Respondent on that same
date. The complaint which issued on November 24, 1976,
alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(IXA) and (2)
of the National Labor Relations Act. Posthearing briefs
were filed by the General Counsel and by Respondent on
May 2, 1977.
The basic issue herein is whether Respondent refused to
allow Gray to register as an applicant for referral from its
hiring hall in violation of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. COMMERCE
Respondent, through the Washington and Northern
Idaho District Council of Laborers, is, and has been at all
times material herein, bound by a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Seattle and Tacoma chapters of the
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., herein
called AGC. The Seattle and Tacoma chapters of AGC are
employer associations composed of employers engaged in
the building and construction industry which exist in part
for the purpose of representing its member-employers in
collective bargaining and negotiating and administering
collective-bargaining agreements in behalf of its member-
employers with various labor organizations, including
Respondent. Both the members of the Tacoma chapter of
AGC in the aggregate and the members of the Seattle
chapter of AGC in the aggregate annually sell, in the
course and conduct of their business operations, goods and
services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located
outside the State of Washington, and the members of the
Tacoma chapter in the aggregate course and conduct of
their business operations annually purchase goods and
supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from points located
outside the State of Washington.
The parties stipulate and I find that the Seattle and
Tacoma chapters of AGC, by virtue of their members, each
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1358
LABORERS', LOCAL 252
11. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The current collective-bargaining agreement between
AGC and the District Council is effective by its terms from
June 1, 1974, through May 31, 1977. The agreement
requires the employers to obtain employees through the
Union, and Appendix 3, Sections 8 and 11, provides that
the Union register and refer all applicants for employment
as follows:
Section 8
Registration and referral of applicants shall be on a
non-discriminatory basis without regard to race, color,
sex, age or creed or to membership or non-membership
in the Union and shall be in accordance with the
following plan. The Union shall register all applicants
for employment on the basis of the Groups listed
below. Each applicant shall be registered in the highest
priority Group for which he is qualified.
Group A. Laborers who have been employed by an
Employer or Employers party or parties to this
Agreement as hereinafter defined, who have worked for
any such Employer or Employers for an aggregate time
of at least 500 hours during the period of two (2) years
immediately preceding registration date.
Group B. Laborers who have been employed by an
Employer or Employers party or parties to this
Agreement as hereinafter defined, who have worked for
such Employer or Employers for an aggregate time of
less than 500 hours during the period of two (2) years
immediately preceding registration date of Laborers
who have worked 500 hours or more in the past two (2)
years in the construction industry for Employers who
are not parties to this Agreement.
Each applicant for employment shall be required to
furnish such data, records, names of Employers and
length of employment and licenses as may be deemed
necessary, and each applicant shall complete such
forms or registration as may be submitted to him.
Applicants for employment shall also list any special
skills they may possess.
Group C. All other applicants for employment who
are physically fit for work in the construction industry.
· * * . .
Section II -- Referral of Applicants. Applicants shall
be referred from Group A in successive order as their
names appear on the out-of-work list, and, when Group
A has been exhausted,
I In his preheanng affidavit, Gray stated he worked 480 hours.
2 All dates hereinafter will be 1976 unless otherwise indicated.
Then, applicants from Group B in successive order
as their names appear on the out-of-work list, and,
when Group B is exhausted,
Then, applicants from Group C in successive order
as their names appear on the out-of-work list.
Gray testified as to several conversations he allegedly
had with Weldon J. Heblich, union business representative.
There was a lot of confusion in his testimony as to the dates
of these various conversations, which he testified were at
least four. Heblich admitted there were two conversations
but denies any others. For reasons set forth below, I have
concluded that the confusion as to dates does not reflect on
Gray's credibility as to the substance of these conversa-
tions. I have further concluded that the conversations
probably occurred at the times indicated herein, but in any
event the exact dates are not critical to my decision herein.
Gray testified that in 1975, during August, September,
and November, he worked for more than 500 hours as a
laborer for Neeley Construction Company.' However,
Neeley did not become signatory to the Laborers Agree-
ment until February 25, 1976.2 In April Gray resumed
employment with Neeley.
On April 28, as he was working at a construction site on
Puyallup Fairgrounds, Weldon J. Heblich, union business
representative and dispatcher, approached Gray and asked
if he was a member of the Union. Gray said no and
Heblich said he would like to see Gray in the union office
the following morning.
On April 29, Gray talked to Heblich in the union hall.
According to Gray, Heblich told him he was not allowed to
work on the Neeley job because he was not a member of
the Union, that Gray was not supposed to work cn any
union job unless he was a union member. Gray asked if he
could join the Union or go through any required proce-
dure. Heblich said he was not taking any new members at
that time because there were 200 or 250 persons on the out-
of-work list. Heblich said Gray could not sign any out-of-
work list nor could he return to the Neeley job because he
was not a member. Heblich further said Neeley should not
hire "off the streets," and he was going to write to Neeley
to have Gray terminated. Heblich said Neeley was in
violation of the contract. At some point, Heblich men-
tioned that Gray's name was not on the list. Gray inquired
as to what list. Heblich said Gray would have to sign the C
list and wait until his name was on the A list. Gray asked to
sign the C list. Heblich said no. Gray asked, "What about
the job?" Heblich said, "Don't get caught back on the job,"
that Neeley would be in violation of the contract.
According to Heblich, on April 28 when he asked if Gray
was a union member, Gray told him he was. When Heblich
returned to his office, he checked the union records and
found that Gray was not a member, that he had signed the
C list on September 11, 1975,3 but had not signed since
then.
On April 29, according to Heblich, Gray came in and
asked, "What do I do to get squared with the Union?" At
that point, Heblich took Gray into the back room and
explained the hiring hall procedure. Specifically, according
3 One has to reregister every 30 days or one's name is dropped from the
list.
1359
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Heblich, he told Gray if he had 500 hours he would be
on the A list and if he had none he would be on the C list.
He did not testify that he mentioned qualifications for the
B list. He also told Gray he would have to get in line and
wait with the others, that he could not be dispatched to the
Neeley job because he would be on the C list. Heblich
states that he offered Gray the list but Gray walked out the
door.
Thereafter Heblich wrote to Neeley requesting Gray's
termination. Pursuant to this request, Gray was terminated
on May 30 after having worked 2-1/2 days. Neeley told
Gray the Union had requested his termination because he
was not a member of the Union, that he had no alternative
other than to lay him off until Gray could get the union
matter straightened out.
On May 3, Gray filed a charge with the National Labor
Relations Board in Case 19-CB-2661 alleging that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by
causing Neeley to discharge him. This charge was with-
drawn on June 8.
On about May 5, Gray returned to the union office and
had another conversation with Heblich. Gray testified on
direct examination that he asked Heblich if he could get
into the Union or if he could sign one of the lists. Heblich
said he could sign the C list. Gray said he felt he was
entitled to sign the A list because he had more than 500
hours with Neeley. 4 At some point, Gray invited Heblich
to check his hours with Neeley. Heblich said he did not
know where Gray got his information but the 500 hours
requirement pertained only to union members. Heblich
also said he had 200 or 250 people on the out-of-work list
and he could not send Gray on a job ahead of them.
On cross-examination, his version of the conversation
excluded the references to 500 hours. Thereafter counsel
for Respondent read into the record from Gray's prehear-
ing affidavit, "On Monday, June 7, I went again to see
Heblich at the union hall. I said Mr. Heblich, I believe I'm
allowed to sign the A Book because I have got over 500
hours as a laborer with Neeley Construction Company and
Heblich replied I don't know where you got your
information from, but that only pertains to union mem-
bers. I said O.K., and left. And that was all that was said
during that conversation."
Heblich admits to a May 5 conversation. However,
according to him, Gray said he had been to the NLRB and
they told him he could sign the A book and he wanted to
sign the A book. Heblich said Gray could sign the C book
and pay the hiring hall fee 5 whereupon Gray walked out.
Dale Vernon, a member of Respondent, testified that he
overheard a portion of that May 5 conversation. According
to him, Heblich had the C book out on the table. Heblich
said, "I will allow you to sign the C Book but there's an $8
filing fee." Gray said he wanted to sign the A book.
Heblich said the A book was for members who had
established hours required to be placed on the A book.
Gray said he did not want any part of the C book, that he
wanted to be put on the A book. Heblich said he could be
put on the A book if he could prove the hours, but he
4 Gray said he got this information about the 500 hours from the
unemployment office.
offered to let him sign the C book again. Whereupon Gray
"stormed" out of the office.
On June 7, Gray filed a charge in Case 19-CB-2675
alleging that Respondent refused to permit him to sign the
A list because his employment had not been with
employers signatory to the Laborers Agreement. On June
29, a complaint issued in that matter alleging that
Respondent, in violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2) of
the Act, refused to permit Gray to register on the A list
because his experience was with employers who were not
signatory to the Laborers Agreement and told Gray that
only union members were permitted to register on the A
list.
Gray testified that in September he went to the union
hall and asked Heblich if he could sign up on their list.
Heblich said no. Heblich then said, "Don't you have some
action pending with the National Labor Relations Board?"
Gray replied, "yes." Heblich turned to Ronald Worrell,
Respondent's business manager, and said, "This is the
gentleman that has the action pending with the National
Labor Relations Board." Worrell said, "The National
Labor Relations Board does not run this office." Heblich
then said to Gray, "We can't let you sign any list until the
matter is dropped or dismissed by the National Labor
Relations Board." Gray left.
Heblich and Worrell deny any such conversation.
Heblich denies any conversation with Gray after May 5. In
an effort to impeach Gray, counsel for the Respondent
read into the record a portion of Gray's prehearing
statement, dated October 22:
[A]round the first of September, 1976, I went down to
the union hall and asked Heblich if I could sign the
book and get back to the job. I told him I'd worked
with Neeley for over a year. Heblich said don't you
have an action pending with the National Labor
Relations Board. He then turned to the man whose
name I don't know and said this guy filed charges
against us with the N.L.R.B., and that man replied I
don't care who filed, the N.L.R.B. doesn't run this
office. Heblich said we're not going to let you sign the
book until this matter is cleared up and we're going -
if you go out on a job, you, now, Neeley will be in
violation of the contract. I then asked if I could get on
with another union and go to work and Heblich said I
would still have to clear my book through Local 252
and I think this would take ninety days or longer.
Gray further testified that in October he had another
conversation with Heblich in which he asked Heblich to
give him information as to the procedure for joining the
Union. Heblich said it would not do any good because they
were not signing any more people on the list because there
were already 200 or 250 people on the list and they were
not taking any new applicants until those already regis-
tered were dispatched to work.
5 The Union charges a monthly S10 fee for use of the hiring hall. When
Gray signed the C list in 1975 and in May 1976 the fee was $8.
1360
LABORERS', LOCAL 252
B. Credibility
As indicated above, Gray's testimony was confused as to
dates. I have considered very carefully the record and the
argument of counsel in this regard. I am convinced, both
from a consideration of the record and from my observa-
tion of him as he testified, that this confusion reflects only
on the reliability of his testimony as to dates and not on his
credibility as to substance. He clearly employed a some-
what peculiar concept as to time periods. For example,
when questioned as to what he meant when he used terms
such as "immediately after" or "right after," he explained
that he was referring to a week or two later. Also he filed
three charges in May, June, and October. In dealing with
questions which attempted to relate specific conversations
with specific filing dates, I am convinced that, though he
seemed to adopt counsel's reference to the filing date of
one charge, he actually testified regarding conversations
which he was relating to the filing date of another charge. I
am further convinced that he was not being evasive but
that there was some failure in communication.
Because of the confusion as to dates, he was questioned
closely and repeatedly. His testimony never wavered as to
the overall substance of what was said between him and
Heblich and I found him to be an essentially honest
witness. Furthermore, Heblich and Vernon corroborate
Gray's testimony that Heblich said he had to be a union
member in order to be placed on the A list. I do not credit
Vernon's testimony that Heblich said Gray could be put on
the A book if he could prove his hours. It seems unlikely
that Heblich would make such a statement when, accord-
ing to Vernon, Heblich had just told Gray that the A book
was for union members. Nor do I credit Heblich's
testimony that he made such a statement on April 29.
Heblich testified that one had to be a union member to sign
the A list, and that persons were dropped from the B list if
they were suspended, or withdrew, from the Union. It was
very apparent from his testimony that union membership
was required for the A and B lists. Therefore, I cannot
credit any contention that he told Gray, a nonmember, that
he could sign the A list if he had 500 hours. Furthermore, I
found Heblich to be a completely unreliable witness. He
testified erroneously as to the documents subpenaed by the
General Counsel and also as to the requirements for
registration on the various out-of-work lists. I do not
consider as a sufficient excuse his testimony that he failed
to explain the extent of the subpenaed list because he was
not specifically questioned regarding portions of the list
that had been removed from the bound book.6 Also, he
first testified that registration on the B list requires 200
hours of work for a signatory. Later he admitted that there
is no minimum number of hours required. Further, he
testified that all hours worked for a newly signed signatory
would count toward the required hours for the A list. Later,
on examination by Respondent's counsel, he changed his
I The complete list for the time period subpenaed consists of the bound
book and of looseleaf sheets previously removed from the bound book when
the list was updated. Heblich testified that the bound book contained the
entire list.
7 Heblich testified that members of sister locals would have their
experience outside the State of Washington counted for the purpose of
qualifying for the B list.
testimony, contending that only those hours worked after
the agreement was signed would be counted.
C. Conclusions
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated the Act
by refusing to provide Gray with its hiring-hall rules. The
evidence establishes that the only information given Gray
was that given orally by Heblich. At no time did Heblich
explain to Gray the contractual requirements for registra-
tion on the B list, the list most advantageous for employees
of nonsignatories. Consequently, Gray never received the
information necessary for him to take the steps which
might have protected his referral rights. It is irrelevant that
hiring-hall rules were posted in the lounge. The rules were
not posted in any area where it could be reasonably
expected that a nonmember applicant would see them and
Gray was never told that the rules were posted in the
lounge. The Board has held that "inherent in a union's
duty of fair representation, is an obligation to deal fairly
with an employee's request for information as to his
relative position on the out-of-work register for purposes of
job referral through an exclusive hiring hall." Local No.
324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO
(Michigan Chapter, Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc.), 226 NLRB 587 (1976). I find that this is
equally applicable to a request for information as to the
hiring hall rules since this is certainly a "matter affecting
employment." See Miranda Fuel Company, Inc., 140 NLRB
181 (1962). Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(bX)(XA) by refusing to provide Gray with its
hiring hall rules.
I further find that Respondent has violated Section
8(bXIX)(A) by Heblich asking Gray to identify himself as to
whether he had filed an unfair labor practice charge
against Respondent and by telling Gray he could not
register as an applicant for referral from Respondent's
hiring hall because he had filed an unfair labor practice
charge against Respondent, and by telling him he could not
register on the A list because he was not a member of
Respondent.
I also find that Respondent refused to allow Gray to
register as an applicant for referral from its hiring hall
because he filed unfair labor practice charges against
Respondent with the Board and refused to permit him to
register in accordance with the contractual preference to
which he was entitled because he was not a member of
Respondent. I further find that, in accordance with the
contractual hiring hall provisions, Gray was entitled to sign
the B list since he had in excess of 500 hours with a
nonsignatory employer and that in May, June, and
October Heblich refused to permit him to sign such list
because he was not a member of the Union.7 I also find
that if Gray had been permitted to register on the B list he
would have been dispatched to one or more jobs. s
Accordingly, I find that, by refusing to permit Gray to sign
8 The out-of-work list and the dispatch records show that persons
registered on the C list were dispatched after Heblich refused to permit Gray
to register on the B list. I find it unnecessary to consider whether the April
employment with Neeley should be discounted as in derogation of the
contract, since he meets the requirements without these hours.
1361
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the appropriate out-of-work list, Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 9 Local Union No. 174,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Independent (Totem
Beverages, Inc.), 226 NLRB 690 (1976). Local Union No.
630, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO (Ebasco Services, Incorporated), 222
NLRB 524 (1976).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Seattle and Tacoma Chapters of the Associated
General Contractors of America, Inc., and their employer-
members are employers within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to permit Gray to register on its out-of-
work list in accordance with the preference to which he was
entitled under the contractual hiring-hall arrangement
because he filed unfair labor practice charges against
Respondent and because he was not a member of
Respondent, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(2) and
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By refusing to give Gray information as to the hiring
hall's rules and regulations, Respondent has breached its
duty of fair representation and restrained and coerced
Gray in the exercise of his rights under Section 7 of the
Act, thereby violating Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
5. By telling Gray he could not sign the out-of-work list
or he could sign only the C list because he had filed unfair
labor practice charges against Respondent and/or because
he was not a member of Respondent, and by requiring
Gray to identify himself as to whether he had filed unfair
labor practice charges against Respondent, Respondent
has restrained and coerced Gray in the exercise of his rights
under Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(2) and
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist from such conduct and from
in any other manner restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
I have found that Respondent discriminated against
Gray by refusing to permit him to register on the out-of-
work list in accordance with the preference to which he was
entitled under the contractual hiring-hall arrangement,
thereby preventing him from receiving job referrals to
9 The complaint does not contain a specific allegation that Respondent
refused to permit Gray to register as an applicant for referral because he was
not a member of the Union. However, the complaint does allege that
Respondent violated Sec. 8(bX2) which itself indicates discrimination
because of lack of union membership. This was fully litigated at the hearing.
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
which he would have been entitled. Therefore, in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that
Respondent make Gray whole for any loss of earnings he
suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against
him, by paying him a sum of money equal to the wages he
would have earned absent such discrimination, less his net
earnings elsewhere during said period. Such loss of
earnings, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 0
The Respondent, Laborers' International Union of
North America, Local 252, AFL-CIO, Tacoma, Washing-
ton, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to permit Robert E. Gray, or any other
employee, to register on the out-of-work list in accordance
with the preference to which he is entitled under the
contractual hiring hall arrangement because he filed unfair
labor practice charges against Respondent and/or because
he is not a member of Respondent.
(b) Coercively requiring employees to identify themselves
as to whether they filed unfair labor practice charges
against Respondent and telling employees they cannot sign
the out-of-work list because they filed unfair labor practice
charges against Respondent or because they are not
members of Respondent.
(c) Failing and refusing to give applicants for employ-
ment information as to hiring hall rules and regulations.
(d) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Robert E. Gray for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against him, in the manner set forth in this
Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
records, reports, work lists, and other documents necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this order.
(c) Post at all places where notices to employees,
applicants for referral, and members are posted copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19, after being duly signed by the Union's
representatives, shall be posted by the Union immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
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.
" In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
1362
LABORERS', LOCAL 252
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Director for Region 19, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to permit applicants for
employment to register on the out-of-work list in
accordance with the preference to which they are
entitled under nondiscriminatory contractual hiring
arrangements because they filed unfair labor practice
charges against us or because they are not union
members.
WE WILL NOT tell applicants for employment that
they cannot register on the out-of-work list in accor-
dance with nondiscriminatory contractual hiring ar-
rangements because they filed unfair labor practice
charges against us or because they are not union
members.
WE WILL NOT require applicants for employment to
identify themselves as to whether they have filed unfair
labor practice charges against us.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees or applicants for employment in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL permit Robert E. Gray to sign the out-of-
work list in accordance with the preference require-
ments set forth in our contractual hiring arrangement.
WE WILL pay to Robert E. Gray the amount of
earnings he lost because of our failure and refusal to
register him on the out-of-work list in accordance with
the preference to which he is entitled under our
contractual hiring arrangement.
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL 252,
AFL-CIO
1363