Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1393 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

MOUNTAIN PACIFIC CHAPTER OF THE A .G.C . 1393
spondent and the Independent on October 1, 1958, be - set aside , and that the
Respondent cease and desist from giving effect to it or to any extension, renewal, or
modification thereof, or any other contract or agreement between said Respondent
and the Independent which may now be in force , unless and until the said Inde-
pendent shall have demonstrated its exclusive representative status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among said employees.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily reduced work hours and
laid off certain named employees , in order to discourage membership in and activity
on behalf of a labor organization . It will therefore be recommended that the
Respondent make whole these named employees for any loss of pay they suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them , by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the
period of discrimination against him , and in a manner consistent with Board policy
set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 , and Crossett Lumber Com-
pany, 8 NLRB 440.
In view of the gravity and substantial nature of the Respondent 's violations of
certain sections of the Act , it will be recommended that it cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case , the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, and Kiekhaefer Independent
Workers Association are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. By contributing support and assistance to Kiekhaefer Independent Workers
Association the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and other
terms and conditions of employment of employees , thereby discouraging membership
in a labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices found herein are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. -
IRecommendations omitted from publication.]
Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors,
Inc.; The Associated General Contractors of America , Seattle
Chapter, Inc.; and Associated General Contractors of America,
Tacoma Chapter and International Hodcarriers, Building and
Common Laborers Union of America, Local No. 242, AFL-CIO
and Western Washington District Council of International
Hodcarriers , Building and Common Laborers Union of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO and Cyrus Lewis, Charging Party. Cases Nos.
19-CA-1374, 19-CB-424, and 19-CB-445. June 21, 1960
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On December 14, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Order in
these cases 1 in which it found that the Respondent Employers vio-
1119 NLRB 883.
127 NLRB No. 156.
500940-01-vol, 127-89
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
lated Section 8(a) (3) and ('1)-of-the Act-and-the Respondent Unions
violated Section 8(b)_(2) and -(1) (A) by executing and maintaining
in effect a contract provision requiring the Employers to hire exclu-
sively through the Union-andby ,denying employment to job appli=
cant. Lewis, pursuant thereto. The Board stated that an,,Opinion
would -be, issued'later- in which it would- set forth its reaisons' for
,concluding that th`efclause vesting in' the Unions' unfettered control
over hiring violates the Act.-, Finally, the Board-'addpted, without
discussion; the Trial Egan er'.s funding :(to which no exceptions had
-been filed) ' t that - the 'Respond'e'nt Local also violated- '.Section
8,(b)_(1) (A) ; of, the-.Act- by, threatening job; applicant-Lewis and by
offering him promises of, benefit" in an effort to induce him-to with-,
draw the charges he had filed against it with the Board.' -,
In its -Opinion, issued !on March 21,-1958,2-tlie- Board reasoned' that
a hiring clause which requires employers'to 'hire only men -referred
by the union and, conversely,' prbhibits - them from hiring anyone
not :referred by the union, encourages, union membership. To sum-
marize,"in the Board's view;'the`vice in such'a clause lies in the.fact
,that,: , (1) ' Itr, requires. the employer to discriminate-"' in hiring'- in
favor'of inen- selected by the union and'againsf men not selected by
it;1.(2); this -discrimination,is- caused by.the union; (3) employees
rwhose-job opportunities are controlled exclusively by the union will
fear, and reasonably so, that union membership or lack of it will be
"a 'factor 'in obtaining referral by the union; (4)- therefore, the em-
ployees, will be encouraged to become or remain members of the
'u`nion: The Board said in that Opinion that it is, difficult to conceive
of anything which would encourage membership more than an agree-
ment which, in practical effect, means that a man 'tali get a j o'b' "only
through the grace of the Union or-its officials" and, at the same time,
leaves the union free to "pick and choose" on any basis it sees-fit.
-(119 -NLRB 883, 895.) Accordingly, the Board concluded that such
a clause constitutes discrimination which encourages union member-
ship within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) and 8(b):(2)
and (1) (A) of the Act. Thtis,,the Board found that-both the dis-
crimination and encouragement necessary to establish a violation of
those sections are inherent in the hiring clause itself. - Jt,folloivs,
therefore, that the violation exists wholly independently-of the
manner in which the union selects the men to-be referred.'
However, the Board reasoned further that if the contract contains
"safeguard" cl'ause`s-as, for example,-one requiring the parties to
post notices setting forth the provisions of the hiring arrangement,
2119 NLRB 893
3 AS used in the statute, "discrimination" includes disparate treatment Cf the
Supreme Court's statement that not all "discrimination" violates the Act but only that
which encourages or discourages union membership The Radio Officers' Union etc. (A H.
Bull Steamship Company) v. N L R.B., 347 U S. 17, 42-43 -
MOUNTAIN- PACIFIC CHAPTER - OF THE A.G.C. 1395
including, among other things,'an assurance, of referral by the union
of nonmembers equally with members-the unlawful encouragement
of union membership otherwise inherent in such a clause its negated
and the Board would find such a clause legal "on its face." 4
Thereafter, -the Board's' findings and' conclusions were considered
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth - Circuit upon
the Board's petition' for enforcement of its order. On August 28,
1959, the court handed down its opinion. N.L.R.B. v. Mountain
Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, Inc., et al.,
270 F. 2d. 425. The, court refused to enforce the Board's order and
remanded the case to the Board for further consideration. Relying
upon its decision in: N.L.R.B. v. A. B. Swinerton, et al.,, d/b/a
Swinerton and,Walberg Company, 202 F. 2d 511, cert.,-denied, 346
U.S. 814, the court ruled that the Board cannot hold illegal, as a,
matter of, law,, a hiring clause which 'does not in terms; give job
preference to union members absent 'evidence that the union ha"s
in fact given them preference. Although the court recognized (as
did the Board) that the record 'contains abundant evidence that the
unions referred nonmembers only, if no members were - available, it,
nonetheless concluded that it could not enforce the order sua sponte,
the Board's conclusion not having been based on that. ground.5 - The
court" also refused-to enforce the portions of the Board's: order based
upon its finding that the parties violated the same sections' of the
Act. by, denying employment to job applicant Lewis, the Board's
conclusion not having been based upon a finding, that ,Lewis was
denied employment because he was not a member of Local 242:
The Board did not seek Supreme Court review of the, -circuit court's
remand of the cases'to the Board., This is not to,say, however, that, in
accepting the remand, the Board agrees with, the circuit court's're-
jection of its holdings. But, having accepted the remand, the court's
holdings must become the law of these cases.
As instructed, having considered the entire 'record' in these cases,
we find that even though the hiring provision did not,,on its face,
give job preference to members of the Unions, the parties in fact-gave.
4 The Board further concluded that in denying -Lewis employment , the parties were
implementing their unlawful hiring provision, and, accordingly , found that the parties
thereby further violated Section 8(a)(3)-and ( 1) and . 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) of the Act_
It also again adopted 'the Trial Examiner ' s conclusion that the Respondent Local's efforts
to induce Lewis to withdraw his charges by the use of threats and promises of -benefits.
constituted an additional violation of,Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act
5 As will be seen, infra, in this opinion we first make the factual finding that the Local
followed an illegal hiring practice and then,base thereon our conclusion that the hiring
clause violates. the Act Accordingly, we do not discuss what we believe to be an alterna-
tive method suggested by the court by which the Board could properly hold invalid, at
least in future cases , a hiring clause such as the one in this case As we read-the deei=
sion, the court indicated that the Board, after notice , could find as a fact that a "loosely
drawn" or "wide open" hiring clause , i.e., one which did not contain "protective" clauses,
was evidence of an intent by the parties to leave the union free to give its members
preference in employment and could then properly , hold that the parties therefore violated
the Act by executing and maintaining such a clause. . _ I
1396- DECISIONS' OF?'NATIONALILABOR` RELATIONS BOARD
0
them,.such preference.' Although it is- true 'that nonmembers were
employed -occasionally, this :occurred: only when, ^no' members were'
available.- Thus Robert^Buchanan, who was one of the Local's officials
at the time of the- events I in, issue -and whose ;testimony was credited'
by the Trial Examiner, testified that "We'dispatch;members first
because they have preference:" There are times;'"naturally," he ex-
plained, when no members are available, in which case nonmembers
are sent out. Accordingly, 'in view of the Local's practice, of unlaw-
fully giving preference to its members in supplying the employers
with workmen, the Respondent Employers violated Section-8 (a) (3)
and , ('1) of the Act and 'the Respondent Unions violated Section
8(b) (2) and (1) (A) by executing and maintaining a contract pro-i
elision which required the Employers to hire only men referred by
the Unions.'' -
Similarly, the record contains ample evidence, also credited by the
Trial Examiner, that job applicant Lewis' failure to obtain work was
due to the -Local's refusal to refer him, initially, because he was not-
a member and, later, because he had also filed with the Board, and
refused to withdraw, charges against the Unions. We so find. We
conclude, therefore, that the Respondent Employers violated Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act and the Respondent Unions violated
Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) by denying employment to employee
Lewis for these reasons. The respondents' denial of employment to
Levbis was also violative of the Act on an entirely separate and
independent ground, i.e., because it constituted implementation of a
hiring clause which, for the reasons set forth in this Decision, was
illegal. See N.L.R.B. v. Charles E. Daboll, Jr., and Operative Plas-
terers' and Cement Masons' International Association, AFL, Local
Union No. 797, 216 F. 2d 143, 145 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 348 U.S. 917.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents, and each of them, have violated
the Act, we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act:
Because we have found herein, for the first time, that the parties'
hiring practice was to give job preference to union members, we will
incorporate into our Order proscriptions against both maintaining or
giving effect to a contract provision which gives such preference and
against the continuation of such practices. Furthermore, having
found that the parties in fact gave job preference to union members
and, having based, thereon, our conclusion that the hiring provisions
a As stated in the Board's original Decision, as only the charge against Respondent
Local 242 was filed within 6 months of the execution of the contract in question, our
finding against the other Respondents is limited to the maintenance of the hiring provi-
sions of the contract rather than their execution. Our remedial action herein is in no
way affected by this difference. 119 NLRB 883, 884, footnote 1.
, 'MOi7NTAINL:PACIFIC , CHAPTER OF THE,A:G.C., 1:397
of -the contract violated the, Act, we will retain in our Order the pro-
scriptions against entering (into or, maintaining a contract provision
which makes union clearance or approval a condition of employment.
N.L.R.B. v. Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Con-
tractors etc., 270 F. 2d 425; 429-430,(C.A.-9)-., See also N.L.R.B. v.
Charles E. Daboll, et al., 216 F., 2d•143, 145 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 348
U.S. 917, enfg. 105 NLRB 311, 312-313; NL:R.B. v. National Mciri-
time' Union o f .America, • et al. (The; Texas Company), 175 F. 2d
.686-689 (C.A._2), cert..denied 338 U.S; 954, enfg. 78 NLRB.971, 991-
992. Moreover, the parties' illegal hiring practices,7 despite the fact
that the "written text" of the hiring provision was "nondiscrimina-
tory," indicate that when the parties entered into a "wide-open" or
"loosely drawn" hiring clause, their intention was to leave the unions
a "free hand" to engage, in discrimination against nonmembers in
referral. Cf. N.E.R.B. v. Mountain Pacific Chapter, etc., 270 F. 2d
425,430 (C.A.9).
It has also been found that the Respondents discriminated against
Cyrus Lewis by refusing him employment because he was not a mem-
ber of Local 242. The nature of the employment situation in this
industry is such that no order of reinstatement is possible. Further-
more, as indicated above, this record does not specify the number of
instances or the amounts of actual loss of employment by Lewis.
Accordingly, the amounts of backpay due him shall be computed in
compliance proceedings. The backpay period shall begin March 15,
1956,- when Lewis. appeared at the Unions' hiring hall in search of
employment." We shall order the various Respondents to notify
Charging Party Lewis that they have no objection to his immediate
employment." The backpay liability of any Respondent shall be tolled
5 days after it serves such written notice on Charging Party Lewis.
Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula stated in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. '
. ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor' Relations Act, a's amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. The Respondents Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated
General Contractors, Inc.; The Associated General Contractors of
T We note in this connection that we do not infer an illegal intent from the wording of
the contract here in `issue ; rather we infer such intent from the parties' "'clearly illegal
hiring practices found herein.
6 As the Trial Examiner did not find that the Respondents discriminated against Lewis,
the'period from the date ' of the Intermediate Report to the date of our original Decision
and Order herein ( 119 NLRB 883 , issued on December 14, 1957) shall , in accordance with
our usual practice , be' excluded in computing the amount of backpay due him . Utah Con-
struction Co., '95 NLRB 196.
e'Babcock & Wilcox , Company; 110 NLRB-2116..
1398 DECISIONS • OF NATIONAL: LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-America;- Seattle Chapter, Inc.; and-A'ssociated General Contractors
of America, Tacoma' Chapter, and their' officers , agents , successors,
and assigns, shall
11. Cease and desist from : . `
•(a)' Performing , maintaining, or otherwise giving effect to provi-
sions of any agreement with the Respondent Unions or any other
labor organization, which expressly give union members preference
in obtaining or retaining employment or which unlawfully condition
-the hire of applicants for employment, or the-retention of employees
in employment with -any employer, upon clearance or approval by
the Respondent ' Unions or' any other labor organization, except as
'-authorized by'the'proviso to Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified
-by • the Labor-Management' Reporting and Disclosure Act 'of 1959.
(b) ' Giving preference in obtaining or retaining employment to
members of any of the Respondent Unions, or of - any other labor
organization, except as authorized by the proviso to Section 8(a) (3)
of- the Act' as modified -by" the' Labor-Management Reporting and
-Disclosure Act of 1959. -
(c) In any like or related' manner encouraging membership in the
Respondent Unions, or in any other labor organization, or otherwise
interfering with, restraining, or= coercing employees in the exercise of
.rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except in a manner per-
mitted by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
and Disclosure Act of 1959.Management-Reporting'
2. Take'the following affirmative *action, which the-Board finds will
'effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make -whole Cyrus -Lewis for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, as provided in
.the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon-request, make available-to the Board or
its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records,,social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
due under-the terms of this Order.
A jc) 'Post at,their offices, and at the offices of each employer member
of the Respondents, in conspicuous places, including -all places where
notices to employees or prospective employees are customarily posted,
copies of the notice attached hereto-marked "Appendix A." 10, Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for-the' Nine-
teenth _-Region, shall, after being duly signed by representatives. of
Mountain Pacific, Seattle, and"Tacoma Chapters, be posted by them
immediately upon receipt thereof. and maintained by them for 60
„i1OIn - the event that this Order I s,enforced by a decree of a a United "-, States;iCourt of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to,a Decision -and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United :States_Court of Appeals ,- Enforcing an Order."
MOUNTAIN PACIFIC CHAPTER OF THE A.G.C. 1399
consecutive, days thereafter. , Reasonable' steps' shall be taken by Re-
spondent Associations' and' their' employer members to insure that
said notices-are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
- (d) -,Notify Cyrus Lewis and the Respondent Unions, in writing;
that they have no objection to his employment, or to the employment
-of any, other employees who -are not - members of the Respondent
Unions or any-other labor organization.
(e) 'Notify the • Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, ' within 10 days from the' date of the Decision herein, what
steps they have taken to comply herewith. {
B. The Respondents International Hodcarriers, Building and Com-
mon Laborers Union of America, Local No. 242, AFL-CIO, and
Western Washington District Council of International Hodcarriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and
their officers, representatives, and agents, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Performing, maintaining, or otherwise giving effect to pro-
visions of any agreement with the Respondent Employers or with any
other employer within the meaning of the Act, which expressly give
union members preference in obtaining or retaining employment or
which unlawfully condition the hire of applicants for employment, or
the, retention of employees in employment with any employer upon
clearance or approval by the Respondent Unions, except as authorized
by the, proviso to Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Employers,
or any other employer, to discriminate against employees or applicants
for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as modified
by the Labor-Management, Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
Z (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees
in-the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except
in a manner permitted by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by
the-Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Cyrus Lewis for any loss of pay he may have
suffered,by reason,of the discrimination against him, as, provided in
the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify, Cyrus-Lewis- and the, Respondent Employers, in writ-
ing,, that they have no. objection to his employment, or to the employ-
ment of any other employees who are not members of the Respondent
Unions or any other labor organization.
,J c), Post at. their offices in conspicuous, places, including all-places
where.notices to employees or prospective employees are customarily
1400 DECISIONS,,OF1 NATIONALS .LABOR, RELATIONS *BOARD
posted; copies of the motice attached hereto marked,"Appendix B.", 11
Copies of, said notice, j o be-furnished-by the, Regional Director, for the,
Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by representatives
of the, Respondent Unions, be,posted by ;them immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof and maintained by them for 60 consecutive. days,there=
after. Reasonable steps shall be, taken by them, to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by, any other material.'
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of the Decision herein, what
steps they have taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision 'and Order.
'? See footnote 10, above.
APPENDIX A ,
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., MOUNTAIN
PACIFIC, SEATTLE, AND TACOMA CHAPTERS, AND, THEIR CONSTITUENT
MEMBERS
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT perform, maintain, or give effect to the provisions
of any agreement with International Hodcarriers, Building and
Common Laborers Union of America, Local No. 242, AFL-CIO,
Western Washington District Council of International Hodcar-
riers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL--
CIO, or with any other labor organization, which expressly give
union members preference in obtaining or retaining employment
or which unlawfully condition the hire of applicants for employ-
ment, or the retention of employees in employment with any em-
ployer, upon clearance or approval by the aforementioned labor
organizations, except as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT give preference in obtaining or retaining employ-
ment to members of any of the Unions listed above or of any'
other labor organization, except as authorized by Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT in any like-or related manner encourage member-
'ship in the. aforementione'd' labor organizations, or in any other
labor organization, or otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce
{MOUNTAIN PACIFIC CHAPTER OF THE 1401
employees in the•exercise of 'the' "rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act, except in a inanner'permitted by. Seotioli •8 (a) '(3) of
the Act, as, modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL make-whole Cyru's Lewis for any loss of pay suffered as
a result of the discrimination against, him.
All our employees and prospective employees are free to become,
remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-
named Unions or any other labor organization, except to the extent
that' this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
'Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
MOUNTAIN PACIFIC CHAPTER- OF THE ASSOCIATED ,
GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
SEATTLE CHAPTER, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-----------=---- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
TACOMA CHAPTER, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA,
Employer.
Dated------------ ---- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any -other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS -OF AMERICA, INC., MOUNTAIN
PACIFIC, SEATTLE, AND TACOMA CHAPTERS, OR THEIR CONSTITUENT
MEMBERS
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT perform, maintain, or give effect to the provisions
of any agreement with Mountain Pacific Chapter, Seattle Chapter,
or Tacoma, Chapter,' of The Associated -General -Contractors of
America, Inc., or with any other employer, which expressly: give
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union members preference in obtaining or retaining employment
or which unlawfully condition the hire of, applicants for employ-
ment, or the retention of employees in employment with ;any em-
ployer, upon clearance or approval by any labor organization,
except as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the above-named Em-
ployers or any other employer to discriminate against employees
or applicants for employment, in violation, of Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act, except in a manner permitted by Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL make whole Cyrus Lewis for, any loss. of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
INTERNATIONAL IIODCARRIERS, BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA,
LOCAL No. 242, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
WESTERN WASHINGTON DISTRICT COUNCIL,
INTERNATIONAL HODCARRIERS, BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
bated---------------- By---------------------------------=--=
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Sea View Industries , Inc. and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 12-CA-352. June 22, 1960
. DECISION AND ORDER
On September 10, 1959, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was -engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
127 NLRB No. 165.