Harder's Constructioon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 698 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.19
18 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discriminate in the consideration of employment opportunities,
or the employment thereof, or in any other manner discriminate against our
employees, because they have participated in connection with the filing or proc-
essing of an unfair labor practice charge filed within the meaning of the Act.
WE WILL offer Hazel King immediate employment, without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges to the extent that it may not have been
done, in the same or substantially equivalent position at which she would have
been employed absent the discrimination against her if such position became
available on or after May 21, 1963, and prior to August 14, 1963.
WE WILL make Hazel King whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against her.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
G.C. LINGERIE CORPORATION OF ALABAMA,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone
No. 876-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Harder's Construction Company , Respondent and Russell Dan-
ford , Charging Party, Virgil P. Sears, Charging Party, Will
R. Rasco, Charging Party, Porter M . King, Charging Party
and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Pile Drivers Local 438, Party to the Contract
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Pile
Drivers Local 438, Respondent and Russell Danford , Charging
Party and Virgil Sears, Charging Party and Will R. Rasco,
-Charging Party and Porter M. King, Charging Party and
Harder's Construction Company, Party to the Contract. Cases
Nos. 15-CA-3272-1, 15-CA-9°272-2, 15-CA-9272-3, 15-CA-92313,
15-CB-630, 15-CB-644, 15-CB-646, and 15-CB-660. April 7,
.1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 24, 1963 , Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Decision in the above -entitled proceedings , finding that the Re-
146 NLRB No. 83.
, HARDER 'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 699
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent Company filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs,' and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations 2 of the Trial Examiner except as noted below.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner?
I We agree with the General Counsel that the complaint did allege with sufficient spec-
ificity violations of the Act because of the requirement that employees pay assessments as
a condition of employment . We further note and correct the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner that Respondent Union violated Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. This was an
inadvertent error and should read : "Section 8 ( b) (2)." The. conclusion is corrected
accordingly
2 The Trial Examiner having found that four employees were unlawfully discharged
recommended that they be reinstated . However, he inadvertently included Virgil P. Sears
whom he found was reinstated by Respondent Company after his unlawful discharge.
Therefore , we shall not require his further reinstatement.
3 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in these cases , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that:
The Recommended Order is further amended by striking the name of "Sears" from the names
of the employees required to be reinstated and in section B, 1, (b), omitting the period
after the word "Union" at the end thereof and adding thereto the words "in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) and 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon the relevant charges filed on various dates between February 5 and April 23,
1963, by the above-named individuals involved, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board on May 20, 1963, issued orders consolidating the cases, con-
solidated complaints , and•a•notice of hearing thereon in Cases Nos. 15-CA-2272-1,
15-CA-2272-2, and 15-CA-2272-3 and 15-CB-630, 15-CB-644, and 15-CB-646,
against the above-named Respondents . Answers from the Respondents were duly
received. Upon charges filed on July 5, 1963, by Porter M. King in Cases Nos.
15-CA-2313 and 15-CB-660, General Counsel issued separate complaints on
July 18, 1963, and on the same day issued and served a new order consolidating
all complaints and a new notice of hearing thereon . Answers were thereafter filed
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Respondents.' The complaints allege and the answers deny that the Re-
spondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2), as to the Union, and Section 8(a)(1) and (3), as to the Company, of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
in Pascagoula, Mississippi, on July 30 and 31, 1963, before Trial Examiner C. W.
Whittemore.
At the hearing General Counsel and the Respondents were represented by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to
argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from General Counsel
and the Respondent Company.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
Harder's Construction Company is a Florida corporation with principal office in
Panama City, Florida. Beginning in the fall of 1962, and at all times material
herein, this Respondent has been engaged in the construction of pilings for the
Standard Oil Company at Pascagoula, Mississippi, the only job here involved
During the 12-month period before issuance of the complaints, the Respondent
Company received at this jobsite materials and supplies valued at more than $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Mississippi.
The Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENT UNION
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Pile Drivers Local
438, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
As noted above, the Respondent Company began construction as the general
contractor of a docking wharf at the Standard Oil site in the fall of 1962. By
agreement the pile-driving operation for this job was performed by workers hired
through the Respondent Union. According to the testimony of W. R. Hollingsworth,
job superintendent and an officer of the Respondent Company, early in November
he needed a number of expert welders to prepare pipe piling. Respondent Local 438
was unable to furnish welders having sufficient experience and skill for the job.
It was then agreed, orally (according to the testimony of both Hollingsworth and
Roberts, an official of the local), that the Company could and would hire from
whatever source available the needed welders, with the further understanding, how-
ever, that such employees must be under the "jurisdiction" of Local 438.
The Respondent Company thereupon hired a number of welders who were not
members of or furnished by Local 438. Four such welders are the charging indi-
viduals in these consolidated cases. While the pertinent facts will be set out fully
below, in substance the issues posed by the complaint arose late in January 1963,
when each of these four welders declined to pay certain dues and assessments to
Local 438. There is no question but that their employment was terminated on
January 23. There is dispute as to whether, as the Respondents claim, such termina-
tion was in the nature of voluntary quitting or, as General Counsel urges, a con-
structive discharge.
It is General Counsel's contention, and this is the nub of the case, that the oral
understanding reached by the Respondents before the actual hire, requiring the
payment of dues and assessments to Local 438, was fatally defective in that it failed
to provide for the 7-day escape period prescribed by Section 8(f) of the amended
Act. It is his further claim that the employment terminations of the four charging
individuals stemmed directly from the enforcement of an unlawful understanding
and therefore constituted violations of the above-cited sections of the Act.
i The answer of the Respondent Company was received within the time prescribed That
of the Respondent Union was not received by the Trial Examiner until August 9, 1963
It was accompanied by a covering letter from that Respondent's counsel stating that
General Counsel had advised him by telephone that he would not object to the late filing.
It will therefore be made a part of the reco^d as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1-jj.
HARDER'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 701
B. Relevant facts
First, as to the nature of the prehire understanding. According to Roberts, the
union representative, "We all agreed that that Company could hire these welders
on and they would pay all dues and working assessments." 2 Hollingsworth was not
asked, directly, as to whether the understanding included the requirement that
welders hired under it must pay local dues and assessments. In answer to a leading
question by his own counsel the superintendent denied that he would have required
the four welders to pay dues in order to work, thereby implying that there had been
no agreement containing such requirement. On the other hand Hollingsworth
admitted that the "understanding" included the requirement that the welders hired
by him must be under the "jurisdiction" of the Respondent Union; and he further
admitted that he knew "there were dues" to be paid. The Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that the prehire understanding included the requirement that welders hired
by the Company must pay dues and assessments to that local as a condition of
employment.3
Next, as to the hire and employment of the four individuals involved: Danford,
Sears, Rasco, and King, none of whom were members of Local 438. The credible
testimony of these welders establishes the following facts:
(1) Danford was hired on November 12 by the welding foreman, C. E. Meyers.
On the Saturday before the Monday of his reporting to work he was told by Meyers
that he would have to pay "foreign dues" of $9 a month to Local 438. On
November 26, Union Representative Roberts appeared on the job and asked
Danford, among others, to pay "$9 for dues, $1 for the Building Trades card, and
50 cents a day for the days we had worked." Danford paid as requested. On
December 12 and 19, Roberts showed up on the job again and collected from
Danford the 50 cents per day "working assessment," referred to as "dobie." Early
in January, Roberts again came to him and asked for more "foreign dues" as well
as the "working assessments." Danford paid the latter, but not the dues.
(2) King also went to work as a welder on November 12. He arrived at the
jobsite late that day and nothing was said to him about union fees or assessments.
Two days later, however, Roberts came on the job to collect dues. Foreman Meyers
introduced them. Roberts told him that he would pay $9 a month and 50 cents a
day, but since he had not been there long enough to "make a payday," he would
see him the next time around. Thereafter Roberts collected from him $1 for a
card, $9 dues, and 50 cents a day for the days worked by the welder.
(3) Rasco was hired on December 10 by Hollingsworth, who told him that he
would have to pay dues to Local 438 and to "find out the details from the men on
the job." On December 19, he paid Roberts $4 for the 8 days worked and was not
asked for more. On January 9, however, the union representative asked him for $9
a month as well as the working assessment of 50 cents a day. Rasco replied that
he would pay one or the other but not both. Roberts said nothing and he paid
nothing.
(4) Sears was hired on December 27. When hiring him Hollingsworth merely
told him he would be working under Local 438. Four days after starting work he
was informed by Meyers that he would have to pay $9 a month "foreign dues" and
50 cents a day "assessments." Two weeks or more later Roberts came to him and
demanded 50 cents a day for the days worked and $9 dues. Sears told him he had
never heard of such a thing, stating that he had been accustomed to pay either the
"travel card" dues or the assessment. He did not pay anything on this occasion.
About the same date Meyers told him he would have to pay as the "rest of them"
did.
Finally, as to the termination of the four welders. Credible evidence establishes
the following facts:
(1) According to Robert's affidavit, in evidence:
When the men had first refused to pay the dues I asked Hollingsworth if
there had been any change in the agreement. Hollingsworth said that there
was no change-that when the men were hired it was agreed they would pay
the foreign dues and working assessments.
2 The quotation is from Roberts' affidavit, as an admission against interest As a wit-
ness he at first admitted that this statement was true and then denied that "they would
pay all dues and working assessments." The latter denial is not credited. Subsequent
events establish that in fact Roberts insisted that these "foreign" welders pay such
tribute to his local, action which he would not reasonably have taken had such in-
sistence not been encompassed in a prior agreement with the Company.
3 Additional support for this conclusion will be noted in section III, C, below.
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) The showdown came on January 23, in the tool shed where a number of em-
ployees were gathered for lunch. Roberts came in to collect dues and assessments.
Foreman Meyers was present. Rasco was not in the shed when Roberts arrived.
Hollingsworth came to him outside, sent him in where others were gathered, and told
him he wanted to get this "Union business" settled. The superintendent followed
Rasco into the shed. Danford and Roberts argued heatedly about the latter's in-
sistence that the welders pay both dues and working assessments. Danford refused
to pay both, and others supported his position, also refusing. According to a sworn
statement of Meyers, which as a witness he admitted was true:
I told the men if they did not want to pay the man the dues they knew they
would have to pay before they took the job they should pick their pay and
drag up.
(3) As the time neared for return to work Meyers further told the men there
assembled that if they were not going to pay up they should go to the office and pick
up their check. Hollingsworth, who was present, affirmed Meyers ultimatum.
(4) Faced with this alternative, some of the welders decided to pay tribute to
Roberts. Danford, Sears, King, and Rasco, however, declined to pay both dues and
assessment, and went to the office.
(5) When the four insisted that some notation be made upon their separation slip
as to why they were being terminated, Hollingsworth approved the text which appears
upon each:
Refusal to pay excessive foriegn [sic] dues to Pile Driver Union Local of
Mobile, Ala. Collected by Mr. G. W. Roberts, Business Agent.
(6) Sears was called back to work early in February. On the day of his reporting
Roberts came to him and demanded money. Sears replied that he would pay either
the dues or the assessments, but not both. Roberts replied that he would pay both
if he stayed on the job. Hollingsworth came up and told Sears he would have to pay.
Sears then said that he did not have the money at the time. The superintendent
thereupon advanced the money for the payment as demanded by Roberts.
C. Conclusions
In the preceding subsection the Trial Examiner has concluded and found, contrary
to the ably argued contention of counsel for the Respondent Company in his brief,
that before hiring the welders here involved the Respondents had entered into an oral
understanding that these employees must, as a condition of employment, pay dues and
assessments to the Respondent Union. Later events, described fully above, appear
to be consistent only with one of two possible alternatives: (1) they were the natural
and logical developments pursuant to a mutual understanding; or (2) at some point
the Respondent, through Hollingsworth, surrendered to Roberts complete control of
its employer authority and power. Had Hollingsworth not agreed to the dues require-
ment the pertinent question arises as to why he stood mute and permitted his foreman
(whether to be considered or not as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act)
deliver an unequivocal ultimatum to the effect that the welders must either pay up
or pick up their checks. These welders, it is noted, were skilled individuals whom
the Union had been unable to furnish and whose services Hollingsworth had under-
gone some trouble to obtain. Furthermore, as already described, in order to satisfy
Roberts' demand upon Sears, after he had returned to the job, that to remain he must
pay both dues and assessments, Hollingsworth readily advanced the necessary money.
No brief has been received from the Respondent Union. It makes no posthearing
contention that the prehire agreement was not made and maintained. It would in-
deed be a futile claim in the face of Roberts' sworn statement, above quoted, to the
effect that after the men had refused to pay he had asked Hollingsworth if there had
been any change in the agreement and was assured there had been none.
Therefore the Trial Examiner concludes not only that payment of union dues and
assessments was by the prehire arrangement a condition of employment but also that
this arrangement was maintained and enforced jointly by the Respondents during
the material period.
In his brief General Counsel urges presuasively that the prehire arrangement or
understanding was unlawful at the outset and that the constructive discharge of the
four welders effectuated pursuant to it were therefore equally unlawful.
His prime point is that the understanding was fatally defective in that it failed "to
provide (the) seven days of grace" specified in Section 8(f) of the amended Act.
The section cited in substance permits, in the construction industry, prehire agree-
ments requiring union membership but specifically provides that "such agreement re-
HARDER'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 703
quires as a condition of employment, membership in such labor organization after
seventh day following the beginning of such employment ......
Here the evidence is clear that the agreement did not at any time include, expressly
or by implication, the 7-day grace period provision. Nor were any of the four
welders, upon hire, informed of such grace period. And while counsel for the Union
at the hearing, sought to establish the fact that Roberts actually did not collect dues
and assessments until at least 7 days from hire had passed, that fact loses significance
in the light of another: collections, when made, were retroactive to the date of coming
on the job.
In his brief General Counsel also meets a point not raised by either Respondent:
the possible claim that actual "membership" was not required either by the agree-
ment or the practice, and that therefore the agreement "falls outside the ambit" of
Section 8(f). He answers the point well by citing N.LR.B. v. General Motors
Corporation, 373 U.S. 734, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held, in appraising
the similar proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, that the "agency shop" conditions
are the practical equivalent of "membership." The same reasoning, the Trial Ex-
aminer believes, applies to Section 8(f).
Although the contention was not made in the complaint, the Trial Examiner finds
merit in General Counsel's claim, made in his brief, that the requirement for the
payment of "assessments" further invalidated the agreement and its maintenance.
There is no question but that "assessments" as well as "dues" were required, both
in the understanding and in Roberts' insistent demands. General Counsel ap-
propriately cites Millwrights' Local 2232, United Brotherhood of Carpenter; and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (Farnsworth & Chambers, Inc.), 122 NLRB
300, a support for his position that such working assessments, where made as a condi-
tion of employment, are violative of the Act.
In summary the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the preponderance of
credible evidence sustains the allegations of the complaint that: (1) there existed
and was enforced an "arrangement, understanding or practice" between the Re-
spondents requiring the welders "to pay dues and working assessments to (the)
Respondent Local as a condition of employment and continuation of employment";
(2) such "arrangement, understanding or practice" failed to include the 7-day grace
period required by Section 8(f); (3) the four welders here involved were construc-
tively discharged because they failed and refused to comply with the requirements of
a legally defective agreement ; and (4) by entering into and enforcing the unlawful
agreement and by discharging and causing the discharge of the welders the Respond-
ent Company violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and the Respondent Union
Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent Company, described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices the
Trial Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent Union notify the Respondent Com-
pany, in writing, that it withdraws its objections to the employment of the four
welders here involved, and that the Respondent Company offer immediate and full
reinstatement to each of them to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. It will also be
recommended that the Respondents jointly and severally make whole the four welders
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money he would have earned absent
the discrimination, less his net earnings, from the date of the discrimination to the
date of offer of reinstatement. Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest thereon
as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be
recommended that the Respondents jointly and severally make the said four em-
ployees whole for all dues, working assessments, and any other moneys paid by them
to the Respondent Union in order to obtain or retain employment with the Re-
spondent Company, as found herein.
744-670 - -65---vol 146--46
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondents were of a nature
which violate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record in the case, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Pile Drivers Local
438, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Russell
Danford, Virgil P. Sears, Will R. Rasco, and Porter M. King, thereby encouraging
membership in and activities on behalf of the above-named labor organization, the
Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Company has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. By attempting to cause and causing the Respondent Company to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act the Respondent Union
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case, it is recommended that:
A. Harder's Construction Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Encouraging membership in and activity on behalf of United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Pile Drivers Local 438, or in any other labor
organization , by laying off , discharging , or in any other manner discriminating against
any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment .4
(b) Giving effect to any agreement, oral or in writing, which requires as a
condition of employment the payment of dues, working assessments, or other moneys
to the Respondent Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to employees Danford, Sears, Rasco,
and King to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights,and privileges.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Union make the said four employees
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by them as a result of the discrimination
against them, and for any moneys unlawfully exacted from them as a condition of
employment, in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, all
records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under terms of this
Recommended Order.
4 Although General Counsel at the hearing specifically disclaimed any issue concerning
the validity of the prehire agreement and its maintenance as it might be affected by the
Mississippi right-to work law, and the Trial Examiner has made no findings in that regard
herein, for obvious reasons he does not include, in this Recommended Order, the provision
which, in States where there is no right-to-work law, permits as a condition of employ-
ment the requirement to become and remain a member of a labor organization as authorized
by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
HARDER'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 705
(d) Post at its Standard Oil jobsite in Pascagoula, Mississippi, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed' by the
Respondent's representative, be posted 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. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (d)
above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the Re-
spondent Union's notice marked "Appendix B."
(f) Furnish to the said Regional Director signed copies of the notice marked
"Appendix A" for posting by the Respondent Union, as hereinafter directed.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.6
B. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Pile Drivers Local
438, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Harder's Construction Company to discriminate
against any employee in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Giving any effect to any agreement, oral or in writing, with the Respondent
Company which requires as a condition of employment the payment of dues, work-
ing assessments, or other moneys to the Respondent Union.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of the above-named
Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify the Respondent Company, in writing, that it withdraws any objections
to the hire and continued employment of the four welders named herein.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Company make whole the four
employees named herein for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them, and reimburse them for any moneys unlawfully exacted from them
as a condition of employment, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Post at its business offices copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
B." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Union's repre-
sentative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (c)
above, as soon as they are forwarded by the said Regional Director, copies of the
Respondent Company's notices marked "Appendix A."
(e) Forward signed copies of "Appendix B" to the said Regional Director for
posting by the Respondent Company.
(f) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.8
6 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" In said notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
7 See footnote 5 above.
8 See footnote 6 above.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , Pile Drivers Local 438, or any other labor organiza-
tion , by laying off, discharging , or in any other manner discriminating against
any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to the following-named
employees:
Virgil P. Sears Russell Danford
Will R. Rasco Porter M. King
WE WILL jointly and severally with the above -named labor organization,
make the above-named employees whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, and reimburse them
for any moneys unlawfully exacted from them as a condition of employment.
HARDER 'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans , Louisiana , Telephone
No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Harder's Construction Company to
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment in violation of
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL notify the said Company that we withdraw our objections to the
hire and employment of the four employees named below.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the above-named Company, make whole
the following-named employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them , and reimburse them for any moneys.
unlawfully exacted from them as a condition of employment by the said
Company:
Virgil P. Sears Russell Danford
Will R. Rasco Porter M. King
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employees of the above-named
Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, PILE DRIVERS LOCAL 438,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans , Louisiana , Telephone
No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.