PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS. LOCAL 389
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 398, United Associ-
ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada (Orcon Inc. and Cal
Orcon East Inc.) and Todd Anderson. Case 21-
CB-7418
March 2, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On July 17, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
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, Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 398, United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in said recommended Order. 2
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250
NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay
due based on the formula set forth therein.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard in Los Angeles, California, on June 2,
1981.' The complaint, issued September 29, is based on a
charge filed September 22 by Todd Anderson, an indi-
vidual. The complaint alleges that Plumbers and Steam-
' All dales hereinafter are within 1980, unless stated to be otherwise
260 NLRB No. 85
fitters Local 398, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
of the United States and Canada (herein called Respond-
ent or the Union), violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein Orcon Inc. (herein called
Orcon), a California corporation, has been engaged in
the business of plumbing contracting, with its principal
place of business located at 2070 South Yale, Santa Ana,
California. In the course and conduct of its business op-
erations during the past 12 months, Orcon purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
from suppliers located within the State of California,
each supplier of which, during the same period of time,
purchased said goods and materials directly from suppli-
ers located outside the State of California.
At all times material herein Cal Orcon East Inc.2
(herein called Orcon East), a California corporation, has
been engaged in the business of plumbing contracting,
with its principal place of business located in Rancho
Mirage, California. In the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations during the past 12 months, Orcon East
purchased and received goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 from suppliers located within the State
of California, each of which suppliers purchased said
goods and materials directly from supliers located within
the State of California, each of which suppliers pur-
chased said goods and materials directly from suppliers
located outside the State of California.
I find that, at all times material herein, Orcon and
Orcon East jointly are, and each of them is, employers
engaged in commerce and in businesses affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 398, United Associ-
ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada is, and at all times material herein has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2 As noted in General Counsel's brief, and as the president of the cor-
poration (Robert Burpo) testified. the legal name of the Corporation is
Cal Orcon East Inc
605
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. I HE Al.E1.i Il) UNFIAIR L.ABOR PRACTICES
A. Background3
From July 1, 1977, Orcon was a member of the Asso-
ciation of Plumbing and Piping Industry Council, a mul-
tiemployer association (herein called the Association)
which negotiated with the Southern California Pipe
Trades District Council No. 16 of the United Association
(herein called the District Council), of which the Union
was a member. The plumbing-heating and piping indus-
try of southern California agreement, to which Orcon
was bound, was effective July 1, 1977, through June 30,
1980. That agreement was superseded by an agreement
effective July 1, 1980, through June 30, 1983. By signa-
ture on an interim agreement, executed June 30, 1980,
Orcon East became bound to the 1980-83 industry agree-
ment. The 1980-83 agreement was signed by representa-
tives of Orcon East on October 27, 1980.
Both agreements, 1977-80 and 1980-83, provide in
pertinent part:
17. Exclusive Hiring. Contractors shall hire quali-
fied journeymen by calling the Local Union having
craft and geographical jurisdiction in which the job
is to be performed ....
31. Contractors shall be privileged to call for
men by name and transfer men as provided in Para-
graph 32 and 36. Such requests shall be honored
without regard to the individual's position on the
out-of-work list ...
32. The first man on each job in the Contractor's
own area in each classification shall come from
Group I or Group 2 and may be called by
name.... The second man on each job in each
classification shall come from Group 1, and may be
called by name. The third man on each job in each
classification shall come from the top of the Group
I list. Thereafter, all other calls by name in each
classification shall be on a 50-50 alternating basis
from Group I lift, with the fourth man permitted to
be a call by name ....
The constitution of Respondent's International pro-
vides, in section 196, that "a local on strike or lockout
shall have power to reject all travel or transfer cards."
At times relevant herein, a condominium project was
under construction by Devonshire Development Corpo-
ration in West Covina, California. Orcon, the parent
company of Orcon East, was a plumbing subcontractor
on the project. Robert Burpo and his sister owned
Orcon; Robert Fuller was general manager (at times rele-
vant herein); and Freda Fuller, Robert's wife, was the
office manager. On July 1, Orcon discontinued work at
the project, and the work was assumed by Orcon East,
whose president and manager was Burpo. Robert Fuller,
a member of Plumbers Local 582, discontinued working
3 This background summary is based on stipulations orf counsel, and on
credited testimony and evidence that is not in dispute.
for Orcon June 28, and immediately began working for
Orcon East as superintendent.4
As part of her office duties, Freda Fuller was author-
ized to, and did, fill out form letter requests addressed to
the appropriate local union, asking for the dispatch of
employees to jobsite. She performed that chore for both
Orcon and Orcon East, and signed Burpo's name on the
requests, after having been authorized by Burpo to do so.
Burpo's office was in Rancho Mirage, California, and he
and Freda Fuller frequently talked by telephone. After
the forms were filled out, Freda gave them to Robert
Fuller, kept a copy of each letter for Orcon's personnel
files, and sent a copy of each to Burpo in Rancho
Mirage. In addition to employees requested by name,
Orcon and Orcon East also obtained from appropriate
local unions, employees who were dispatched "off the
book"; i.e., employees who had reported to the Union
and who had signed the out-of-work list.
Todd Anderson, the Charging Party herein, is a jour-
neyman plumber whose union membership is in Local 78
(Los Angeles), but who sometimes works out of Local
398 on a travel card. In June 80 Anderson was employed
out of Local 398 on the Devonshire project, working for
Orcon under the supervision of Gregory Fraijo, who
was a member of Local 582 (Santa Ana), and who also
was working on a travel card. On June 30 David Liskey,
business manager and dispatch administrator for Local
398, visited the project and talked with Anderson,
Fraijo, and one other employee. Liskey told the three
employees that Orcon had not been paying their fringe
benefits due under the contract, and that they would not
be able to work on the project until all benefits were
paid to a current status. Anderson, Fraijo, and the third
employee, similarly employed, left the job with the un-
derstanding that they were to check with Liskey each
morning or evening thereafter to ascertain whether
Orcon had paid, and amounts due. If they were paid the
employees could return to their jobs. Anderson called
Liskey on the telephone July 1 and 2, but Liskey said
Orcon still had not paid, and that, therefore, Anderson
could not return to the job. Anderson called Fraijo on
the evening of, July 2, and learned that Fraijo had been
dispatched to the job that morning as a foreman for
Orcon East. Anderson did not work thereafter, until July
17.
Members of the Union struck some employers on July
1, after the 1977-80 contract expired, but most contrac-
tors, including Orcon East, signed interim agreements
and employees of those contractors continued to work.
Employers who did not sign such agreements were mem-
bers of the Association; Orcon was a member of the As-
sociation. During the strike, which ended July 17, ap-
proximately 60 to 100 of Respondent's 1,200 members
were out of work-the others were not on strike.
B. Dispatch Request for Anderson
One of the principal areas of controversy is whether
Orcon East requested that Anderson be dispatched to the
Devonshire project. A second area of controversy is the
' Fuller credibly testified that he notified the Union of this change.
606
PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, LOCAL 398
reason Liskey did not dispatch Anderson to the Devon-
shire project at the same time Fraijo was dispatched.
Burpo testified that his Orcon "partnership" with his
sister was dissolved, that Orcon discontinued doing busi-
ness, and that Orcon East, a separate company, took
over Orcon's business on July 1. The record contains no
evidence to the contrary, Burpo was not cross-examined
on this point, and Burpo's testimony relative to the
matter is credited.5
Freda Fuller credibly testified that she prepared letter
requests for each and every Orcon employee who
worked on the Devonshire project, and that all of them
were prepared on June 30. She said that she never before
had filled out requests in such manner for all employees
on one job. 6 Freda testified that she does not know what
happened to the copies of the letter requests she put in
the personnel files.
Burpo testified that, in early July, he received 40 or 50
copies of letter requests for Orcon on various jobs, and
that he kept them approximately 3 months, after which
he threw them away. He said he is not familiar with dis-
patch procedures.
Robert Fuller testified that on July I or 2, he visited
the union hall and attempted to obtain a union dispatch
of two employees by name request, and five employees
off the out-of-work list, for the Devonshire project. He
said the name requests were for Fraijo and Anderson. 7
Fuller testified that he instructed Freda Fuller to prepare
the two name requests. It is clear from the record, and
found, that the two name requests were among those
prepared by Freda Fuller, on Orcon East stationery. He
said he talked with Liskey, and handed to Liskey a
check for past benefits through June, plus the letter re-
quests for Fraijo and Anderson, which he had received
from Freda Fuller.8 Fuller testified that Liskey accepted
the check and the Fraijo request, but that Liskey said
"he wouldn't let me have Todd Anderson" because "he
was not a member of his local." Fuller said Liskey re-
turned Anderson's request, which Fuller took back to
the office and later threw away. Fraijo, and other em-
ployees, reported to work the following day, but Ander-
son did not.9
a Burpo testified that the reason for his providing labor on projects
formerly being done by Orcon was that Orcon East had signed the inter-
im agreement with the Union, and Orcon had not signed.
6 Freda Fuller's testimony during cross-examination on this subject was
ambiguous, and at one point seemed to be self-contradictory. She said she
prepared a letter "for every single employee then Inote: June 30] on the
payroll of Orcon" but immediately thereafter stated that she did not
"ever before fill out a letter for every employee." Upon examining her
testimony in its entirety it is clear, and it is found, that she testified that
she parepared letter requests as instructed, for all employees on the Des-
onshire project, approximately June 30, and that such preparation was
unique in her experience at Orcon. Further, it is found that all letters pre-
pared by her on June 30 were on behalf of, and were on letterhead statio-
nery of, Orcon East
' Fraijo was requested as a foreman; his supervisory status is not in
dispute. Anderson's journeyman status also is not in dispute.
' Robert Fuller testified that he had talked with Liskey on the tele-
phone a day or so prior to going to the union hall, and that Liskey had
told him that the past due fringe payments for the project would have to
be paid, and that Liskey must have a letter stating that Orcon East was
"taking over the job."
s In addition to Fraijo, the Union dispatched employees off the out-of-
work register to the Devonshire project.
Anderson testified that when he talked with Fraijo on
the telephone July 2 (discussed supra, under sec. iii,A.)
Fraijo told him the past due benefits had been paid under
Orcon East's name. Anderson then called Robert Fuller
on the telephone and asked why he did not get sent back
to the job, when Fraijo did. Fuller said Liskey refused to
dispatch Anderson. On July 3 Anderson telephoned
Liskey and asked why he did not get dispatched to the
job when Fraijo did, and Liskey replied "he no longer
needed any Local 78 people to work that job, that he
would staff it and run it with Book I people out of 398."
Anderson continued:
I said I didn't get fired or laid off and I said, how
come I am not entitled to a job there. He said that I
should just go contact Calvin Emory and see about
working my own territory and also asked me if my
travel dues were current at that time, about which I
said, yes,
On July 7 Anderson received a memorandum from the
Union, reading as follows:
This is to inform you, your travel card dues are
current and your card has been returned to your
home local. Any questions, please contact your
home local.
Prior to receipt of the memorandum, no one from local
398 had said anything to Anderson about returning the
travel card to Anderson's home local.
Liskey testified that many contractors work within the
jurisdiction of several locals, and contractors regularly
like to use their own supervisors, wherever the jobs are,
but customarily use journeymen dispatched from locals.
Thus, most travel cards deposited with Local 398 are
those of supervisors. Pursuant to section 196 of its consti-
tution, °0 the Union has the right to reject, or to return
to the home local, the travel card of any union member
during a strike or lookout. Shortly before the strike,
Liskey decided for local 398 to return all travel cards of
employees on strike, except supervisors, to their home
locals, and he so advised the district council. By tele-
phone call on July 1, Everett Schell, a business manager
of the District Council, affirmed that decision. More than
50 travel cards then were returned to locals, of which
more than 20 were returned to Local 78, which was An-
derson's Local, and the employees were notified of that
action by letter from the Union. Only cards of employ-
ees on strike were returned; those who continued to
work (under an interim agreement) did not have their
cards returned. Orcon East had signed an interim agree-
ment, and its employees were not on strike. Orcon, for
whom Anderson worked, was on strike, and that was the
reason Anderson's travel card was returned to Local 78.
Fraijo worked for Orcon East, and he was a supervisor,
therefore, his travel card was not returned to his local.
After the strike was over, nearly all travel cards that had
been returned to locals were redeposited by employees
with local 398. A day or so after Liskey talked with em-
"' Resp Exh I
607
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees at the project site and took them off the job (dis-
cussed supra), Fuller came to the union hall and present-
ed to Liskey a request letter for Fraijo and a check for
benefits. There was no discussion concerning Anderson,
nor did Fuller present a letter of request for the dispatch
of Anderson.
C. Discussion
So far as the request for Anderson's dispatch is con-
cerned, it is clear, as found supra, that Freda Fuller filled
out a letter form on Orcon East stationery requesting the
dispatch; that she gave the form to Robert Fuller:; ' and
that Robert Fuller was to give the form to Liskey.
Burpo, Robert Fuller, and Anderson credibly testified
that they knew Orcon East supplied the labor for the
Devonshire project after Orcon no longer provided it,
and Burpo credibly explained the reason for the change.
Robert Fuller credibly testified that he told Liskey about
the change, prior to the time Fraijo was dispatched by
the Union. There is no reasonable doubt but what Orcon
East, which was not on strike and which had an interim
contract with the Union that provided for the dispatch
of employees at Orcon East's request, completed the
proper forms requesting such dispatch.
So far as the second major area of controversy is con-
cerned, Robert Fuller credibly testified that he delivered
the Orcon East request for Anderson's dispatch to
Liskey. Liskey's denial of that delivery is given no cre-
dence. In addition to the fact that Liskey was not a
credible witness, his denial appeared unrealistic and con-
trary to the clear shape of events indicating otherwise.
Liskey contended that Anderson's travel card was re-
turned to his local because Anderson worked for Orcon,
and Orcon's employees were on strike; he further con-
tended that Fraijo was dispatched because he worked for
Orcon East, which company was not on strike. Liskey
said the cards of many other striking employees were re-
turned to their locals during the same period Anderson's
was returned. 2 Liskey said his actions were in accord
with the Union's constitution, and had the approval of
the District Council. This recitation by Liskey appeared
strained and highly unlikely. It is given no credence. An-
derson credibly testified that, when he talked with
Liskey, Liskey said nothing about the Union's constitu-
tion, or about returning Anderson's travel card to his
local. Anderson's testimony on this point had the support
of Robert Fuller's testimony relative to his (Fuller's)
conversations with Liskey.
Freda Fuller credibly testified that she prepared re-
quests for all employees on the Devonshire project, on
Orcon East stationery, June 30 and gave them to Robert
Fuller. Robert Fuller credibly testified that he gave the
requests for Anderson and Fraijo to Liskey, who accept-
ed Fraijo's but rejected Anderson's with the statement
that Anderson was not a member of Liskey's local. Lis-
i" The fact that a copy of the form was not available for introduction
into evidence credibly was explained by Freda and Robert Fuller. Failure
to produce a copy is given no weight, since it is clear that the form was
completed as the two Fullers testified.
12 No evidence of the sending of such other letters was introduced,
other than Liskey's testimony Assuming, arguaendo, that they were sent,
the fact would not affect any finding.
key's contention at the hearing that Anderson was an
Orcon employee, and thus was a striking employee, is
given no credit. Clearly, Liskey knew, as Robert Fuller
credibly stated he had told Liskey, that Orcon East was
taking the place of Orcon on the Devonshire project,
and that the request for Anderson was an Orcon East re-
quest, not an Orcon request. Robert Fuller previously
had told Liskey that he then was working for Orcon
East and had so notified the Union, and further, Liskey
himself had taken Anderson off the Devonshire project.
Respondent argues "Orcon East and Orcon attempted to
circumvent the power of the Union to strike Orcon by
having Orcon East complete the job Orcon started." Yet
Liskey, without hesitation or protest, dispatched Fraijo
and other employees to the job after he knew that Orcon
East had taken over the job from Orcon, and there is no
showing that the Union at any time prior to this contro-
versy was concerned about the Orcon-Orcon East ar-
rangement. 1 3
Respondent argues that Anderson was not registered
on the out-of-work list at the time Robert Fuller request-
ed Fraijo and Anderson, but there is no indication, even
in Liskey's testimony, that Fuller or Anderson was told
that Anderson was denied dispatch because of that fact.
Further, there is no evidence that registration on the out-
of-work list is a condition precedent to dispatch. Finally,
Liskey was responsible for Anderson's lack of work, and
Anderson called Liskey on a daily basis to ask when he
could return to the job; Liskey was fully aware that An-
derson was out of work. This argument appears to be an
afterthought, without merit. Orcon East was entitled,
pursuant to its contract with the Union, to request An-
derson by name, as the first journeyman on the job.
Anderson credibly testified that when he asked Liskey
why he was not dispatched at the same time Fraijo was,
Liskey stated "he no longer needed any Local 78 people
to work that job, that he would staff it and run it with
Book I people out of 398." That testimony is supported
by Robert Fuller's testimony concerning Liskey's reason
for refusing to dispatch Anderson. Anderson was eligible
for referral, and the contract between Orcon East and
the Union included an exclusive hiring arrangement.
Under such circumstances, it was Respondent's burden
to show, as it contended, that the refusal to dispatch An-
derson was not a violation of the Act.'4 Respondent
failed to meet its burden. Liskey's various explanations of
the reasons for his denial of Anderson's dispatch are con-
trary to the record, and do not rebut the testimony of
Anderson and Robert Fuller, which shows that the
reason for the refusal was not related to any lawful union
effort. Liskey's purpose clearly was to prevent Ander-
13 Respondent argues that Fraijo was a supervisor, and that the Dis-
trict Council's policy was to accept travel cards of supervisory personnel
and to reject others during a strike. However, as discussed above. the re-
quests for Fraijo and Anderson were from Orcon East, which was not
involved in a strike. Liskey said nothing to Fuller or to Anderson about
refusing to dispatch Anderson because he worked for a company that
was being struck. So far as the record shows, there was no labor dispute
between Orcon East and the Union.
14 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 592 (United
Engineers d Construction Co.), 223 NLRB 899 (1976); International Associ-
ation of Heat d Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers. AFL-CIO. Local 22
(Rosendahl. Inc.), 212 NLRB 913 (1974).
608
PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, LOCAL 398
son's employment by Orcon East, and his actions were
discriminatory, in violation of the Act. iS As stated by
the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
On a number of previous occasions, we have held
that it is an unfair labor practice in violation of
[Section] 8(b)(l)(A) and 8(b)(2) for a bargaining
representative to act in an unreasonable, arbitrary,
or invidious manner in regard to an employee's em-
ployment status. Kling v. N.L.R.B., 503 F.2d 1044,
1046 (9th Cir. 1975). See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Bricklay-
ers Local No. 7, 563 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1977). By
wielding its power arbitrarily, the Union gives
notice that its favor must be curried, thereby en-
couraging membership and unquestioned adherence
to its policies. Laborers and Hod Carriers Local No.
341 v. N.L.R.B., 564 F.2d 834, 839-840 (9th Cir.
1977). No specific intent to discriminate on the basis
of union membership need be shown; if the foresee-
able result of discrimination is the encouragement of
union membership, it must be supported by a legiti-
mate purpose. Id.'6
Respondent argues that the Union "chose to adhere to
the provisions of the Constitution by limiting the dis-
patching of travelers to supervisory personnel," but as
discussed above, the Union's constitution does not apply
here, since Orcon East was not being struck, and in any
event, other employees were being dispatched from the
out-of-work list, to Orcon East at the same time Ander-
son was requested.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR lABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recom-
mend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found herein, and from
any like or related unfair labor practices, and to take cer-
tain affirmative action described below.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Orcon and Orcon East are, and each of them is, and
at all times material herein have been, employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
'5 International Union of Operating Engineers. Local 18, AFL-CIO
(Ohio Contractors Assn.). 204 NLRB 681 (1973)., enforcement denied and
remanded 496 F.2d 1308 (6th Cir. 1974); 220 NLRB 147 (1975), enforce-
ment denied 555 F.2d 552 (6th Cir 1977) See also United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No 1914, AFL-CIO (14' & H
Conveyors Systems. Inc.). 250 NLRB 1426 (1980)
6 VLR.B, v. International 4ssociation of Bridge. Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers. Local 433 [Associated General Contractors of Califor-
nia. Inc , 60) F 2d 770 (9th Ctr t1979), enlg 228 NLRB 1420(1977)
2. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 398, United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada is, and at all times material herein has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. At all times material herein, Respondent and Orcon
East have been parties to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment under which Respondent has operated an exclusive
hiring hall.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (I)(A) of
the Act by (a) operating its exclusive hiring hall in disre-
gard of the provisions of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment effective from July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1983, and,
(b) refusing to dispatch Todd Anderson, who is entitled
to dispatch pursuant to hiring hall procedures set forth in
said collective-bargaining agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER 1 7
The Respondent, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 398,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Operating its exclusive hiring hall in disregard of
the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement ef-
fective from July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1983, or any suc-
cessor agreement.
(b) Refusing to dispatch Todd Anderson, or any other
individual, who is entitled to dispatch pursuant to hiring
hall procedures set forth in a collective-bargaining agree-
ment.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees or applicants for employment in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Operate its exclusive hiring hall in a nondiscrimina-
tory manner and in accordance with the provisions of
the collective-bargaining agreement effective from July
1, 1980, to June 30, 1983, or any successor agreement.
(b) Make whole Todd Anderson for any loss of earn-
ings and benefits which he may have suffered as a result
of Respondent's unlawful conduct, to be computed in ac-
cordance with F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corpo-
ration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), and Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
7 In the event no exceplions 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 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall he deemed waived for all purposes
609
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify Cal Orcon East, Inc., in writing, that it has
no objection to it requesting Todd Anderson for employ-
ment.
(d) Preserve and, upon request. make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to compute the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its place of business copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' 8 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being duly signed by its authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
ts In the event that this Order is enfolrced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National L abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judglment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE Wit l NOT operate our exclusive hiring hall
in disregard of the provisions of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement effective from July 1, 1980, to
June 30, 1983, or any successor agreement.
WE WIL L NOT refuse to dispatch Todd Anderson,
or any other person, to his or her rightful employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify Cal Orcon East, Inc., in writing,
that we have no objection to the employment of
Todd Anderson.
WE WILL make whole Todd Anderson for any
loss of pay or benefits he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him, plus inter-
est.
PLtUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 398,
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED
STAIES AND CANADA
610
