Carpenters Local 687 (Convention & Show Services)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 2008

352 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
352 NLRB No. 119
1016
Local 687, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters
(Convention & Show Services, Inc.) and Michael
Johnston. Case 7–CB–15293
July 31, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On December 27, 2007, Administrative Law Judge
Paul Bogas issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief. The General
Counsel also filed a cross-exception and supporting brief,
and the Respondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,
findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Local 687, Michigan Re-
gional Council of Carpenters, Detroit, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
Judith A. Champa, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jeffrey D. Wilson, Esq. and Dennis M. Devaney, Esq. (Strobl &
Sharp, P.C.), of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and Nicholas
R. Nahat, Esq. (Novara Tesija & McGuire, P.L.L.C.), of
Southfield, Michigan, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BOGAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Detroit, Michigan, on October 22, 2007. Michael
Johnston, an individual, filed the original charge on August 9,
2006, and an amended charge on September 28, 2006. The
Regional Director of Region 7 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) issued the complaint and notice of hearing

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3 (b) of the Act.
2 The General Counsel urges that the Board’s “current practice of
awarding only simple interest on backpay and other monetary awards
be replaced with the practice of compounding interest.” Having duly
considered the matter, we are not prepared at this time to deviate from
our current practice of assessing simple interest. Tech Valley Printing,
Inc., 352 NLRB No. 81 fn. 5 (2008), citing Rogers Corp., 344 NLRB
504 (2005).
on February 9, 2007. The complaint alleges that Local 687,
Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters (the Respondent)
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act) in the operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall by
maintaining written referral procedures that discriminate
against members who refrain from engaging in Respondent-
sponsored picketing and other protected activity. The Respon-
dent filed a timely answer in which it denied having committed
any of the violations alleged in the complaint.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing findings of fact and conclusions of law
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Convention & Show Services, Inc., a corporation, is an ex-
position contractor with a place of business in Detroit, Michi-
gan. It annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000
and purchases and receives at its Michigan facility, goods and
supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out-
side the State of Michigan. The Respondent admits, and I find,
that Convention & Show Services is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
The Respondent admits and I find that it is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent’s Referral Procedures
The Respondent is a labor organization with an office and
place of business in Detroit, Michigan. It operates a hiring hall
from which it refers out-of-work members to contracting em-
ployers, including Convention & Show Services, Inc. The
contracts between the Respondent and those employers provide
that the Respondent is a nonexclusive source of referrals—
meaning that the Respondent’s members may seek jobs with,
and potentially be hired by, any employer without being re-
ferred by the Respondent. The Respondent, and its member-
ship, acted in 1996, and again in April 2007, to ratify and main-
tain written procedures that govern these referrals. Under those
procedures, an out-of-work member who wants to be referred
by the Respondent registers by completing and submitting a
card. The Respondent numbers those cards consecutively, in
the order they are received, and places them in the “out-of-work
box.” When an employer asks the Respondent to refer an indi-
vidual or individuals, the Respondent will generally begin by
offering the referral to the qualified individual with the lowest
number in the out-of-work box, and then will proceed to the
qualified individual with the next lowest number, and so on,
until the number of workers requested by the employer has
been reached. Members who work a specified number of hours
after submitting a card are no longer considered to be out-of-
work and their cards are removed from the box. If such indi-
viduals want to be referred in the future, they must reregister
and obtain a new out-of-work number.
The written referral procedures create a few significant ex-
ceptions to the general procedure of offering referrals to quali-
CARPENTERS LOCAL 687 (CONVENTION & SHOW SERVICES) 1017
fied members in the order that their cards entered the out-of-
work box. The complaint alleges that two of the exceptions are
unlawful. The challenged exceptions modify the consecutive
referral procedures based on a member’s participation in, or
refusal to participate in, Respondent-sponsored picketing and
other protected activity. Those exceptions state as follows:
Paragraph 4(c). Refusal to participate in organized ac-
tivities such as picketing, hand billing, etc. will also qual-
ify for removal [from the out-of-work box].
Paragraph 7. Except for referrals under agreements
which establish that the Local Union is to be the exclusive
source of employment, the out-of-work box shall be used
to call individuals for picket duty and individuals who are
serving as pickets shall be granted first preference on re-
ferrals to available employment in the order that they are
in the out-of-work box.
The Respondent maintained and enforced paragraph 7 starting
no later than February 9, 2006. On about March 1, 2007, after
the complaint in this case issued, the Respondent ceased en-
forcement of paragraph 7. The Respondent has not enforced
the other challenged provision—paragraph 4(c)—for at least
the past 5 years, and the record does not show that that para-
graph was ever enforced. However, the Respondent has not
removed either of the challenged provisions from the written
procedures. In the past, copies of the written procedures were
posted at the referral hall and those written procedures are cur-
rently available in the Detroit office of the Michigan Regional
Council of Carpenters (MRCC), the Respondent’s governing
body.1 There are 10 other locals operating under the auspices
of the MRCC, and all of those locals have ratified the referral
procedures.
For over 5 years, Nick McCreary, an agent of the Respon-
dent,2 has been the person with responsibility for operating the
Respondent’s out-of-work referral system. McCreary, the only
witness in this case, credibly testified about the operation of
that system. He stated that, on average, there are about 500
individuals with cards in the out-of-work box,3 of whom about
100 are picketers. The cards of members who engage in Re-
spondent-sponsored picketing are moved to the front of the out-
of-work box. When an employer asks the Respondent to refer
potential employees, McCreary begins by offering the referrals
to qualified picketers with cards in the out-of-work box, with-
out regard to whether there is a qualified nonpicketer who has

1 Other, unchallenged, portions of the referral rules provide that the
Respondent may offer referrals without regard to numerical order when
placing a union steward or when an employer makes a written request
for a particular individual. There was also testimony that some em-
ployers supply the Respondent with “do not hire lists,” and that the
Respondent will not refer an individual to an employer who has placed
that individual on such a list, regardless of whether that individual is
the next qualified member in the out-of-work box.
2 In the answer to the complaint, the Respondent admitted that
McCreary was its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
3 McCreary testified that the number varies over time. At the time of
trial, the number of cards in the out-of-work box had swelled to about
700, but at other times the number of cards has dropped to as low as
200.
been out-of-work longer and holds the next referral number.4
The Respondent only extends referral offers to the non-
picketers if there are not enough qualified picketers to satisfy
the employer’s request. In most cases, all of the persons re-
ferred by the Respondent are picketers. According to
McCreary, approximately 80 to 85 percent of the time the Re-
spondent finds enough persons to refer from among the quali-
fied picketers and does not reach the nonpicketers with cards in
the out-of-work box. Although paragraph 7 of the referral pro-
cedure states that picketing employees “shall be granted first
preference on referrals to available employment in the order
that they are in the out-of-work box,” McCreary testified that,
in practice, the Respondent refers individuals who have been
engaging in a great deal of picketing over picketers who would
have priority based on their referral numbers, but who have not
picketed as much. Once a picketer obtains work using the
picketing preference, the preference is extinguished, and the
next time the individual seeks a job referral, he or she must
engage in picketing again in order to obtain a preference. Dur-
ing McCreary’s tenure operating the referral system he has
never exhausted the cards in the out-of-work box, meaning that
there have always been more members waiting for referrals
than there have been available referrals.
Contracting employers have the right to refuse employment
to persons referred by the Respondent. However, approxi-
mately 90 percent of the time the employers hire the referred
individuals and retain them for the full term of the project.
Even when a contracting employer refuses employment to a
referred individual, that employer is required to pay the rejected
individual for 2 hours work.
B. The Complaint
The complaint alleges that, since about February 9, 2006, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the
operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall by maintaining written
employment referral procedures that grant priority to its mem-
bers who engage in Respondent-sponsored picketing, and with-
hold referrals from its members who refuse to engage in such
picketing, for the purpose of encouraging members to engage in
protected activities on behalf of the Respondent and to discour-
age members from exercising their Section 7 right to refrain
from engaging in such activities.
III. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The Board has held that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall when it
discriminatorily denies referrals to members because those
members have engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of
the Act. Carpenters Local 370 (Eastern Contractors Assn.),
332 NLRB 174 (2000); Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City &
Suburban Delivery), 332 NLRB 870, 870 fn. 1 (2000); Carpen-
ters Local 626 (Strawbridge & Clothier), 310 NLRB 500, 500
fn. 2 (1993), enfd. mem. 16 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 1993); Laborers
Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB 777, 780 (1984), enfd.

4 McCreary makes these offers by phone. Approximately 70 percent
of the time that he calls someone to offer a referral, that individual is
not present and does not return the call in time to obtain the referral.
This failed-contact rate is the same for picketers and nonpicketers.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1018
782 F.2d 1030 (3d Cir. 1986) (Table). Such discrimination is
unlawfully coercive in the context of nonexclusive hiring halls,
despite the fact that the coercion is greater when the discrimi-
nating union is party to an exclusive hiring arrangement.
Teamsters Local 923 (Yellow Cab Co.), 172 NLRB 2137, 2138
(1968).5 The protections provided by Section 7 extend not only
to a member’s decision to participate in union activities, but
also to a member’s decision to refrain from union activities,
including union-sponsored picketing. Service Employees Dis-
trict 1199 (Staten Island University Hospital), 339 NLRB 1059,
1060–1061 (2003); District 65, Distributive Workers (Blume
Associates, Inc.), 214 NLRB 1059 (1974); see also Service
Employees Local 87 (Able Building Maintenance Co.), 349
NLRB 408, 412 (2007) (“An essential element of any violation
of Section 8(b)(1) is restraint or coercion in the exercise of a
Section 7 right; i.e., the right to form, join, or assist a labor
organization, or to refrain from such activity.”).
The record establishes that the Respondent ratified and main-
tained written procedures stating that individuals who refuse to
engage “in organized activities such as picketing, hand billing,
etc.,” qualify for removal from consideration for job referrals
and that individuals who do participate in Respondent-
sponsored picketing will be granted first preference for receiv-
ing job referrals. For a number of years, the Respondent gave
effect to the preference for picketers, and only ceased to do so
after the Board issued the complaint in this case. The chal-
lenged job referral procedures explicitly discriminate against
members who exercise their Section 7 rights to refrain from
Respondent-sponsored picketing, and therefore those proce-
dures violate Section 8(b)(1)(A).
The Respondent offers a number of arguments for why this
discrimination based on participation in picketing activity
should not be considered a violation of the Act. First, it argues
that the cases holding that discrimination in referrals from non-
exclusive hiring halls violate the Act are inapplicable here be-
cause those cases involve discrimination against a particular
dissident union member, whereas this case involves the grant of
a preference to a group of individuals. According to the Re-
spondent, the first of those situations is of a “completely differ-
ent character” from the second. The Respondent contends that
absent discrimination targeting a particular individual, the
manner of referral by unions has not been regulated by the

5 The Respondent cites Teamsters Local 460 (Superior Asphalt), 300
NLRB 441 (1990), for the proposition that “absent an exclusive hiring
hall arrangement, a union’s failure to operate its hiring hall in accor-
dance with objective criteria is not a violation of the Act” since “a
union operating a nonexclusive hiring procedure lacks the power to put
jobs out of the reach of workers.” R. Br. at 6. Although in that case the
Board held that a union has no duty of fair representation in the nonex-
clusive hiring hall setting, the Board explicitly stated that discrimina-
tion in referrals at a nonexclusive hall is still a violation of Sec.
8(b)(1)(A). 300 NLRB at 441 fn. 1 (A union operating a nonexclusive
hiring hall violates Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) when it “denies a member a referral
in retaliation for the employees’ participation in protected activity.”);
see also Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City & Suburban Delivery),
332 NLRB at 870 fn. 1 (even though union has no duty of fair represen-
tation in the operation of a nonexclusive referral system, the union
violates Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) when it refuses to refer individuals in retalia-
tion for their protected activity).
Board in the context of nonexclusive hiring halls. (R. Br. at 6–
7.) The Respondent has not shown that this distinction is rec-
ognized by the Board or the Courts and, in my view, the dis-
tinction is not a meaningful one. By referring picketers who
would not have received the referrals except for the preference,
the Respondent is denying referrals to qualified nonpicketers
who have been waiting longer and thus possess lower referral
numbers. To put it another way, when the Respondent is par-
celing out a limited number of job referrals to a larger number
of members, it cannot reward some for engaging in picketing
activity without punishing others for exercising their Section 7
rights to refrain from such activity. Indeed, the evidence
showed that the Respondent’s preference for picketers has
meant that the first 80 to 85 percent of referrals go to qualified
picketers without any of the nonpicketing members even being
considered. This is true despite the fact that the picketers com-
prise only about 20 percent of the members awaiting referral.
Obviously a referral procedure that has the effect of reserving
the first 80 to 85 percent of job referrals for picketers will tend
to coerce members’ decisions about whether to engage in pick-
eting. The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a un-
ion’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall
regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s subjective
motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-
picketers. See Service Employees Local 1107 (Sunrise Hospi-
tal), 347 NLRB 63, 65 (2006), citing Boilermakers Local 686
(Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983) (Where a union
interferes with a member’s Section 7 right to refrain from union
activity, Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not require a showing of mo-
tivation or intent to establish a violation.).
I reject the Respondent’s suggestion that discrimination in
referrals at a nonexclusive hiring hall is only unlawful when it
targets a specific individual, not a group of individuals. The
Respondent provides no authority to support this proposition,
and I am not surprised. A union’s discrimination based on
members’ exercise of their Section 7 rights is not made any
more palatable by the fact that it punishes a large number of
members, rather than a select few. Moreover, the condemna-
tion of such discrimination in the distribution of job opportuni-
ties has not been limited to instances when the Section 7 activ-
ity involved a member’s intraunion dissidence or political ac-
tivity, but rather has extended to circumstances in which the
refusal to refer is based on legitimate union interests. See, e.g.,
Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City & Suburban Delivery), 332
NLRB 870, 870 fn. 1 and 876 (assuming referral system is
nonexclusive, union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) by refusing to
recommend members for employment because those members
refrained from participation in a strike).6
The Respondent argues that one of the two referral provi-
sions at issue—paragraph 4(c)—can be interpreted to apply to
activities not covered by Section 7 and, in any case, has not

6 As the General Counsel recognizes, in the context of “conduct that
the union can regulate internally in furtherance of legitimate union
interests” discrimination may be permissible if it does not “affect[ ]
members’ employment opportunities based on Section 7 considera-
tions.” GC Br. at 14. The Respondent’s discrimination in the distribu-
tion of employment referrals, however, affects members’ employment
opportunities.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 687 (CONVENTION & SHOW SERVICES) 1019
been enforced. As set forth above, paragraph 4(c) states that an
individual qualifies for removal from the out-of-work referral
system if he or she “refus[es] to participate in organized activi-
ties such as picketing, hand billing, etc.” The Respondent con-
tends that this provision can apply to Respondent-organized
activities, such as charitable events, which do not implicate
Section 7 rights. Even assuming that the provision can be in-
terpreted to reach some unprotected activity, that would not
change the fact that it explicitly reaches other activity, such as
refusal to participate in picketing, which is undoubtedly pro-
tected by Section 7. Such coercion is unlawful regardless of
whether the provision also has lawful applications. The Re-
spondent’s defense that it did not enforce paragraph 4(c), is also
not viable. The mere existence of a rule that improperly dis-
criminates on the basis of a member’s protected activity has a
chilling effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights, and violates
Section 8(b)(1)(A) regardless of whether the provision has ever
been enforced. Awrey Bakeries, 335 NLRB 138, 139–140
(2001), enfd. 59 Fed. Appx. 690 (6th Cir. 2003); Engineers &
Scientists Guild (Lockheed-California), 268 NLRB 311 (1983).
In its brief, the Respondent also contends that the challenged
referral policies were implemented by the MRCC, and applied
by MRCC business representative McCreary, not by the Re-
spondent (identified in the complaint as “Local 687, MRCC”).
Accordingly, it argues, no violation by the Respondent has been
established. I conclude that this defense is precluded by the
answer to the complaint, in which the Respondent admitted that
it “maintained” the challenged referral procedures in “the op-
eration of its nonexclusive hiring hall,” and that McCreary was
its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. The
Respondent never moved to amend its answer in either of those
two respects. Moreover, the evidence showed that, in fact, the
Respondent acted to accept and maintain the unlawful referral
rules on two occasions, most recently in April 2007. Thus,
whatever the involvement of the MRCC as a discrete entity, the
Respondent itself adopted and maintained the unlawful referral
procedures that its agent, McCreary, enforced at its hiring hall.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Since February 9, 2006, the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the operation of its nonexclusive hiring
hall by maintaining written referral procedures that discriminate
against members who refrain from engaging in Respondent-
sponsored picketing and other protected activities.
REMEDY
Much of the briefing in this case concerns the question of
whether make-whole relief—and in particular backpay—is an
appropriate remedy. The complaint seeks the conventional
make-whole remedy, but the Respondent contends that such a
remedy is not available. First, the Respondent argues that
backpay may not be awarded because the General Counsel only
alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), not Section 8(b)(2).
This argument is contrary to controlling Board precedent,
which holds that backpay is an appropriate remedy for viola-
tions of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Development Consultants, 300
NLRB 479, 480 (1990); Laborers Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.),
271 NLRB at 780.7 Similarly, the Respondent argues that
make-whole relief is not available given that the hiring hall was
nonexclusive and therefore the discriminatory preference in
referrals did not mean that members were “prohibited from
going directly to the contractors themselves.” This argument is
precluded by Board decisions stating that backpay is the proper
remedy when a union unlawfully denies members referrals
based on discriminatory reasons, even if the hiring hall is non-
exclusive. Id. The opportunities that discriminatees had to find
employment without the assistance of the Respondent may be
addressed when interim earnings and mitigation efforts are
considered in a compliance proceeding.
The Respondent also contends that an award of make-whole
relief would be improper because the General Counsel “did not
present any evidence that members were passed over for a re-
ferral,” and a make-whole remedy would be “purely specula-
tive.” (R. Br. at 9.) This contention is contrary to the facts.
McCreary’s testimony made clear that the unlawful preference
for picketers meant that he passed over qualified members who
had been registered in the out-of-work system longer, and had
lower referral numbers, in order to grant priority to qualified
picketers. The evidence showed that, given the unlawful pref-
erence for picketers, the Respondent awarded the first 80 to 85
percent of job referrals to picketers without even considering a
single nonpicketer. This was true despite the fact that the pick-
eters were a minority—only 20 percent—of the members
awaiting referrals. Thus the nexus between the unlawful prefer-
ence and the denial of job referrals to nonpicketers is anything
but speculative. It is true that the record does not identify spe-
cific nonpicketers to whom the referrals were discriminatorily
denied. However, the Board has held that in cases involving a
union’s unlawful failure to refer members it is appropriate to
defer to compliance the question of who is in the class of vic-
tims. Electrical Workers Local 48 (Oregon-Columbia Chapter
of NECA), 342 NLRB 101, 109 (2004); Electrical Workers
Local 724 (Albany Electrical Contractors), 327 NLRB 730
(1999); Electrical Workers Local 6 (San Francisco Electrical
Contractors), 318 NLRB 109, 142–143 (1995), enfd. mem. 139
F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 1998).
The Respondent also argues that an order for make-whole re-
lief would be unduly speculative because contracting employers
were not required to hire the persons who the Respondent re-
ferred. This argument is specious. The contracting employers

7 The Respondent suggests that the General Counsel is improperly
attempting an “end run around” the established proof requirements by
alleging a violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A), rather than Sec. 8(b)(2). R. Br.
at 9. However, the Board has stated that Sec. 8(b)(1)(A)—not Sec.
8(b)(2)—is the appropriate provision for consideration of allegations of
union discrimination in the operation of a hiring hall where, as here, the
hiring hall is nonexclusive. Carpenters Local 626, 310 NLRB at 500;
Development Consultants, 300 NLRB at 480. A union violates Sec.
8(b)(2) when it discriminates in the operation of an exclusive hiring
hall or when it causes an employer to discriminate against employees.
Id. Thus, the General Counsel and the complaint invoke the appropri-
ate provision.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1020
were required to pay each referred member for a minimum of 2
hours work, regardless of whether the employer chose to hire
that individual or not. Thus nonpicketers who were discrimina-
torily denied referrals lost, at a minimum, the 2-hours pay that
would have been guaranteed to them had they been referred by
the Respondent. Moreover, since the contracting employers
hired 90 percent of those referred by the Respondent, the losses
suffered by persons who were discriminatorily denied referrals
was generally much greater than the 2-hour minimum. Given
the evidence presented in this case, I conclude that the Respon-
dent’s contention that the loss of earnings resulting from the
discrimination was unduly speculative is without merit.
The Respondent relies on the decision of the United States
Supreme Court in Sure-Tan, 467 U.S. 883 (1983), to support its
argument that the Board’s conventional make-whole remedy is
too speculative in this case. That reliance is misplaced. The
remedy that was invalidated in Sure-Tan set a minimum back-
pay entitlement in lieu of the calculation of discriminatees’
actual losses. The General Counsel is not seeking such a rem-
edy here, but rather requests the conventional remedy under
which backpay will only be provided for actual losses that are
calculated in a subsequent compliance proceeding. In Sure-
Tan, the Court not only did not preclude the conventional rem-
edy as too speculative, but explicitly approved of it. 467 U.S.
at 902 (“We generally approve . . . the conventional remedy of
reinstatement with backpay, leaving until the compliance pro-
ceedings more specific calculation as to the amounts of back-
pay, if any, due these employees.”). The Respondent’s citation
to the Board’s decision in Page Litho, 313 NLRB 960 (1994),
is similarly unpersuasive. In that case, the respondent was an
employer that violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally ceasing to
provide a union with notification of job openings. The General
Counsel sought backpay and the Board denied the request
based on the absence of discrimination, the nonexclusive nature
of the hiring arrangement, and the fact that the employer was
not required to hire individuals referred by the union. The
Board explicitly distinguished cases, such as the instant one, in
which backpay is appropriate because a union discriminated in
the operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall. Id. at 962, dis-
cussing Development Consultants, supra. In the instant case,
not only was the denial of referrals discriminatory, but when a
discriminatee was denied such a referral he or she lost at least
the guaranteed minimum 2-hours pay. Thus the decisions, such
as Development Consultants, 300 NLRB at 480, and Laborers
Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB at 780, which provide
that backpay is an appropriate remedy for a union’s unlawful
discrimination in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall,
are controlling here, not Page Litho.
The General Counsel urges that the Board’s “current practice
of awarding only simple interest on backpay and other mone-
tary awards be replaced with the practice of compounding in-
terest.” (GC Br. at 24.) The Board has considered, and re-
jected, this argument for a change in its practice. See Rogers
Corp., 344 NLRB 504 (2005), citing Commercial Erectors,
Inc., 342 NLRB 940 fn. 1 (2004), and Accurate Wire Harness,
335 NLRB 1096 fn. 1 (2001), enfd. 86 Fed. Appx. 815 (6th Cir.
2003). If the General Counsel’s argument in favor of com-
pounding interest has merits, those merits are for the Board to
consider, not me. I am bound to follow Board precedent on the
subject. See Hebert Industrial Insulation Corp., 312 NLRB
602, 608 (1993). Lumber & Mill Employers Assn., 265 NLRB
199 fn. 2 (1982), enfd. 736 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. de-
nied 469 U.S. 934 (1984); Los Angeles New Hospital, 244
NLRB 960, 962 fn. 4 (1979), enfd. 640 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir.
1981).
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act as alleged
in the complaint, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Having found that paragraphs 4(c)
and 7 of the Respondent’s written out-of-work referral proce-
dures unlawfully discriminate against members on the basis of
their Section 7 activity, those paragraphs must be rescinded and
stricken from the Respondent’s written referral procedures.
The Respondent must also refrain from maintaining or enforc-
ing those provisions or in any other way considering a mem-
ber’s participation in picketing activity sponsored by the Re-
spondent when distributing job referrals to members. The Re-
spondent, having discriminatorily denied job referrals to mem-
bers, must make all discriminatees whole for any resulting loss
of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis,
less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended8
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 687, Michigan Regional Council of
Carpenters, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining, enforcing, and/or giving effect to written
job referral procedures that grant priority or preference to
members who engage in picketing that is sponsored or sanc-
tioned by the Respondent, and which withhold referrals from
members who refuse to engage in picketing and other protected
activity.
(b) Giving any consideration to members’ participation in, or
failure to participate in, Respondent-sponsored or sanctioned
picketing when offering job referrals to members.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind, and strike from its written job referral proce-
dures, the provisions that grant priority job referrals to mem-
bers who engage in picketing sponsored or sanctioned by the
Respondent, and which withhold referrals from members who
refuse to engage in picketing and other protected activity.

8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 687 (CONVENTION & SHOW SERVICES) 1021
(b) Make whole members for any loss of earnings and bene-
fits they may have suffered, as a result of the Respondent’s
discrimination against them since February 9, 2006, in the man-
ner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all hiring hall records, all documentation regard-
ing the Respondent’s referral of members for employment, all
documentation regarding compensation and employment ob-
tained by members, all documents reporting or recording the
participation of members in Respondent-sponsored picketing,
all referral cards, and any other documents, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, neces-
sary to identify those who suffered loss of employment because
of the violations found herein and/or to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its un-
ion office and hiring hall in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members or applicants for referral are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS

9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with
your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or give effect to job referral
procedures that give priority or preference to members who
engage in picketing that we sponsor or sanction, and which
withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in pick-
eting and other protected activity.
WE WILL NOT give any consideration to whether you have
participated in, or refrained from participation in, picketing that
we sponsored or sanctioned when offering job referrals to
members.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL rescind, and strike from our written job referral pro-
cedures, provisions that grant priority job referrals to members
who engage in picketing that we sponsor or sanction, and which
withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in pick-
eting and other protected activity.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of earnings and bene-
fits that you may have suffered as a result of our discrimination
since February 9, 2006, with interest.
LOCAL 687, MICHIGAN REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS