International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 825

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 825
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
No. 825 , AFL-CIO and Domenic Tarantino. Case
22-CB-1320
November 25, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS
FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On August 9, 1968, Trial Examiner Lowell Goerlich
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Decision, and briefs in support of exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, except as modified below.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 825, AFL-
CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified.
1. Delete footnote 12 of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Remedy.
2. Delete the second paragraph of the Recom-
mended Remedy, including the suggested letter.
3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a) of
the Recommended Order:
(a) Upon request, reinstate Domenic Tarantino to
membership in its organization without requiring the
payment of back dues to the Respondent for the
period of his expulsion, except for that portion of his
dues which is shown at the compliance stage to be
regularly allocable to the cost of insurance premiums,
pension contributions, and other welfare benefits
955
accruing to Respondent's members, to the extent that
they can be reinstated retroactively to the date of
Tarantino's expulsion; to the extent that benefits
such as life insurance, health, and medical insurance
benefits and the like cannot be made effective
retroactively for Tarantino, Respondent shall be
required to reimburse Tarantino with interest thereon
at 6 percent per annum, for any expenses or losses
suffered because of the absence of such benefits, less
the proportion of Tarantino's dues which would have
been allocable to the payment of premiums for or
other purchase of such benefits; and the Respondent
shall otherwise comply with that part of the Decision
entitled "The Recommended Remedy," as heretofore
modified.
4. Add the following to paragraph 2(b) of the
Recommended Order: Copies of said notice shall also
be mailed by Respondent to each of its members.
i The Trial Examiner suggested that a letter be sent to each member
of the Union signed by the Executive Officer of the Union . While we
regard that recommendation as unnecessary to adequately remedy the
violation , we shall require the Respondent to mail copies of the Notice
contained in the attached Appendix, inasmuch as the posting of the
Notice in the Union hall may not be an adequate method of
communicating the contents thereof to all the members of the Local.
General Truckdnvers, Local No 5, 161 NLRB 493, 503
We do not adopt fn. 12 of the Trial Examiner 's Recommended
Remedy , awarding attorney 's fees and costs for the Charging Party and
the Government
The General Counsel excepts to paragraph 2(a) of the Recom-
mended Order We agree with the General Counsel that the Recom-
mended Order requires the reinstatement of Tarantino upon his paying
the portion of dues which are not allocable to the cost of insurance
premiums , pension contributions , and other welfare benefits . Painters
Local Union No 585, 159 NLRB 1362
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Trial Examiner: On charges filed by
Domenic Tarantino, an individual, on March 29, 1968, against
the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 825,
AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board
by the Regional Director for Region 22, on April 16, 1968,
issued a complaint and notice of hearing naming the Union as
the Respondent . The complaint in substance alleged that the
Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein referred to as the
Act, by expelling Domenic Tarantino as a member because he
filed an unfair labor practice charge against it. The Respondent
filed timely answer denying that it had engaged in the unfair
labor practice alleged.
The matter came on for hearing in Newark, New Jersey, on
May 15, 1968. At the time of the hearing the General Counsel
and Respondent Union were represented by counsel and the
Charging Party, Domenic Tarantino , appeared in propria
persona . Each party was afforded full opportunity to present
evidence relevant to the issues, to call, examine , and cross-
examine witnesses , to present oral argument , to file proposed
findings and conclusions , and to file briefs. Briefs were
173 NLRB No. 145
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent Union
which have been duly considered by the Trial Examiner.
Upon the record as a whole and from his observation of the
witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 825,
AFL-CIO, is the collective-bargaining representative of its
members and other persons employed by numerous employers
engaged in the building and construction industry in the State
of New Jersey, including the Building Contractors Association
of New Jersey, herein called B.C.A. The Trial Examiner finds,
as is admitted by the Respondent Union, that International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 825, AFL-CIO, is
and has been at all times material herein a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYING ENTERPRISE
Building Contractors Association of New Jersey maintains
its principal office and place of business at 1180 Raymond
Boulevard, Newark, New Jersey, and has been at all times
material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and
existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New Jersey
B.C.A. is, and at all times material herein has been, an
association of employers whose members are engaged as
contractors in the building and construction industry in the
State of New Jersey and in other States of the United States.
B.C.A. is, and at all times material herein has been, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
In the course and conduct of their business operations
during the preceding 12 months, said operations being repre-
sentative of their operations at all times material herein,
employer-members of the Association provided and performed
building and construction services valued in excess of $50,000,
which budding and construction services valued in excess of
$50,000 were provided and performed within States other
than the State of New Jersey.
The Trial Examiner finds that Building Contractors Associa-
tion of New Jersey is now and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On June 27, 1967, Domenic Tarantino appeared at the
Board's Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey, and executed
and filed a charge against the Union in Case 22-CB-1225.1
The charge alleged a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in words as
follows:
I Tarantino had filed four previous unfair labor practice charges
against the Union
2 Art XVII, section 4, provides
No suit or other action at law or equity shall be brought in any
court and no proceeding shall be initiated before any administrative
agency by any member , officer or subdivision of the International
Union of Operating Engineers until and unless all rights , remedies
and reasonable provisions for hearing , trial and appeal within the
Organization shall have been properly followed and exhausted by
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since on or about June 26, 1967, and at all times
thereafter,; the above-named labor organization, by its
officers, agents and representatives, has failed and refused
to refer Domenic Tarantino for employment from its
exclusive hiring hall or discnmmated against Domenic
Tarantino in such referrals and thereby caused employers
who are members of the Building Contractors Association
of New Jersey or employers who are members of the
Associated General Contractors of New Jersey to discnm-
inate against said Domenic Tarantino in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
By the above and other acts and conduct, the above-named
labor organization, by its officers, agents and representa-
tives, has restrained and coerced Domenic Tarantino and
other employees or applicants for employment in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of
the Act
After an investigation the Acting Regional Director, Region
22, on July 27, 1967, refused to issue a complaint based upon
Tarantino's charge.
On November 13, 1967, union member Thomas Landolfi
filed charges with the union against Tarantino as follows
I Thomas Landolfi Register 1068919 member in good
standing of Local 825, do hereby file charges against
brother member Domenic Tarantino.
In the past several years and as late as June 27, 1967,
Domenic Tarantino violated the obligation of membership,
Article XVII Sec. 42 subdivision 3 and subdivision 7 section
(e) of the Constitution of the International Union of
Operating Engineers in that he failed to exhaust internal
remedies before filing complaints with the N.L.R.B in the
following cases which were ruled upon as noted.
June 27, 1967 Case #22-CB-1225 Dismissed
July 28, 1966 Case#22-CB-1091 Dismissed
March 30, 1966 Case# 22-CB-1035 Withdrawn
Feb. 3, 1965 Case# 22-CB-829 Dismissed
Oct. 27, 1964 Case#22-CB-799 Withdrawn
These are all a matter of record.
As a result of these actions the local union has been
forced to spend a large amount of money for legal counsel.
In addition time spent by officers, business agents, and
the clerical staff in testifying as well as compiling records
created an added financial burden on the local union. This
also interfered with their regular duties.
He should be expelled from the local union
Fraternally,
Thomas J. Landolfi
On March 18, 1968, the charges were presented to a regular
monthly local union meeting. A verdict of guilty was returned
by a vote of 391 to 47 3 By letter dated March 20, 1968,
Tarantino was advised by the recording secretary that the
"Local Union at its regular monthly meeting on Monday,
March 18, 1968 wherein the membership present and voting,
found you guilty of the charge made by Brother Thomas
the member, officer or subdivision complaining . This provision shall
only require resort to internal remedies for a period not exceeding
four (4) months Any member violating this provision , shall, in
addition to the penalties prescribed in the Constitution and Ritual,
be subject to a fine equal to the full amount of the costs incurred in
the defense of any such action by the union , together with such
costs additional as the court may fix or assess against said member
3 The Union has a membership of around 8,000.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 825 957
Landolfi and voted to expell you pursuant to the terms of the
Constitution."4
At the union meeting Landolfi's charge was read in its
entirety. However, evidence was confined to the unfair labor
practice charge filed in Case 22-CB-1225 5 Tarantino's
charge filed with the Board in Case 22-CB-1225 was placed
into evidence as well as the Acting Regional Director's letter of
July 27, 1967, in which the issuance of a complaint in Case
22-CB-1225 was refused 6 Tarantino requested a court
stenographer which request was denied. No official minutes
were produced at the hearing, the record is vague as to whether
any official minutes were recorded. Landolfi alone presented
the case stating that Tarantino "had not exhausted [his]
internal remedies by filing cases with the National Labor
Relations Board." As his defense Tarantino attempted "to read
and introduce into evidence to show [his] appeals to both the
local and the international union in this matter, that went back
to 1963" about "discrimination in the hiring hall" but such
evidence was not accepted. Tarantino was restricted to "only
matters pertaining from June 26th or 27th on." The matter
was put to vote by secret ballot without discussion and "[b] y
virtue of the vote," the vice-president, who was presiding,
"expelled" Tarantino from the Union and asked him to leave
the meeting, which he did.7
The Trial Examiner allowed evidence over the objection of
the General Counsel as to what information Tarantino "had on
which he based charges filed against the union," Such evidence
was allowed pursuant to the Trial Examiner's opinion that if
the union member has no "arguable basis for filing the charge"
and "acts in bad faith" to "harass the union," such conduct
might concern a "plainly internal affair of the union"8 over
which the union could lawfully exercise disciplinary jurisdic-
tion. The Trial Examiner doubts whether such evidence was
admissible in the instant case in that the credible evidence
reveals that Tarantino was not tried by the union because he
had allegedly filed a frivolous charge and had acted in bad faith
with intent to harass the union. Rather Tarantino appears to
have been tried on the sole ground that he had violated the
Union's Constitution by not exhausting the internal remedies
therein afforded before filing a charge with the National Labor
Relations Board. Disciplinary action taken against a union
member on this ground is a matter that is in the public domain
and beyond the plainly internal affairs of the union. N.L.R.B.
v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, supra.
Nevertheless, the Respondent is not helped by such evidence
for such evidence supports a valid justification for Tarantino's
journey to the Board.
Facts (as revealed by the credible record) within Tarantino's
knowledge at the time of filing his charge are as follows:
Tarantino had been a member of the Union for approximately
16 years. He had filed previously four unfair labor practice
charges alleging that the Union discriminatorily refused to
refer him to available employment. On June 19, 1967,
Tarantino registered out of work with the Union. About this
time an intra-union campaign was in progress, the subject of
which was a proposed increase in initiation fees and dues. The
proposed increase in initiation fees and dues was sponsored by
the Union's administration. Tarantino campaigned openly
against the proposed increases. On June 19, 1967, Tarantino
orally requested that the Union appoint him to the Union
Election Committee which was to supervise the conduct of the
election set for June 26, 1967 in connection with the proposed
increase in initiation fees and dues There were approximately
30 members to be, appointed to the Union Election Commit-
tee, each of whom would receive $100 for his services. On
June 21, 1967, Tarantino received a letter from a union
secretary appointing him a member of the election committee.
On June 21, 1967, Tarantino mailed a letter to 1,200 members
of the Union in which he opposed the Union's initiation fees
and dues increase. In the letter, the view was stated that the
dues increase was opposed because of the escalation clause
therein which would provide for future dues increases as wages
increased, and that the Union did not need more money, but
instead should conserve money. Tarantino signed the letter as
secretary of the Engineers' Ethical Practices Association, an
unofficial group of Local 825 members. On June 23, Tarantino
received a telegram advising him to disregard the letter
appointing him to the committee. On inquiry, Union Vice
President Sally Illario advised Tarantino that his appointment
was withdrawn because Peter W. Weber, president-business
manager, did not want hun on the election committee. In his
affidavit, Tarantino also quoted Union Vice President Illario as
stating on the morning of June 26, 1967, when asked why
Tarantino had been taken off the election committee, that he
"didn't like the idea of my having sent off the opposition
letter." On June 26, 1967, the date of the election, Tarantino
appeared at the union hall ready and willing to work but spent
the day as an unofficial election observer, a function which is
open to any Local 825 member. Although Tarantino remained
in the union hall the entire day on June 26, he received no
referrals although he had reason to believe that referrals were
made9 in any event as replacements for the members of the
Union Election Committee. At no time had Tarantino regis-
tered an unwillingness to accept employment on June 26,
1967.
4 Tarantino has filed an appeal with the International Union which is
pending
5 The parties stipulated that "the only evidence that was permitted
to be introduced in connection with the charges filed against Mr
Tarantino were the evidence in relation to the charge filed on June 27,
1967, in Case No 22-CB- 1225 and that only evidence in defense that
Tarantino was permitted to put into evidence was in respect to such
charge "
6 A part of the Acting Regional Director 's letter reads
In this connection, it is noted that you admittedly have no
knowledge that any applicant was referred for employment in
preference to yourself on June 26 , 1967, a day on which you acted
as an observer at an mtra -union election Moreover , the investigation
does not reveal any discrimination agamist , you in referrals from the
Union's hiring hall In this connection, it is noted that since August
1, 1966, you have been referred to 22 jobs , one of which you
rejected , and have, in fact, been steadily employed at various jobs
since June 29, 1967.
7 The evidence before the Trial Examiner raises doubts as to
whether Tarantino was afforded the "full and fair hearing" by the
Union required by 29 U.S C. 411 (a)(5) See decision of Judge
Kalbfleisch , Baer v United Automobile Workers, (AFL-CIO), Local
549 U S D.C N.D. of Ohio, Civil No 37036 (October 18, 1963).
8 The Supreme Court said in N L R.B v. Industrial Union ofManne
and Shipbuilding Workers ofAmenca, AFL-CIO, and Its Local 22. 391
U S 418, "we agree that the overriding public interests makes
unimpeded access to the Board the only healthy alternative , except and
unless plainly internal affairs of the union are involved."
9 Robert McKay, general clerk and dispatcher of jobs for the Union,
testified that referrals were made on June 26 , 1967, and that "a normal
day at that time of day could range maybe between 20 and 30 varying
from a one -day stand on up," and that Tarantino 's name was on the
referral list
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In his affidavit filed with the Board, Tarantino alleged "The
gist of my complaint in this charge is that because I
campaigned against the dues and initiation fee increases, I was
not referred out as a possible replacement on 6/26/67 to
substitute for members of the Election Committee."
Tarantino also claimed that in the past he had been
discriminated against, pointing to his wages which were low in
comparison to some members who earned as high as $25,000 a
year.' 0
Considering the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner is
convinced that Tarantino had an arguable basis for believing
that he had a valid claim against the Union for violation of the
obligation cast upon it by the statute. The lack of a referral on
June 26, or an inquiry as to whether he desired a referral
following upon the heels of his having been bumped from the
Union Election Committee after he had distributed a letter in
opposition to a position on a dues and initiation fee increase
sponsored by the union administration, with the clear implica-
tion that his bumping was caused by his distribution of the
letter, presents a setting in which discrimination against
Tarantino might well have manifested itself. Indeed, on the
basis of the events herein recited, reasonable minds, versed in
legal theory and possessed of expertise, may differ as to
whether the Acting Regional Director was justified in refusing
to issue a complaint. For the layman who was bucking the
stream, the feeling of discrimination was the natural and
probable consequence of the events which herein occurred.
The Trial Examiner cannot find that Tarantino approached the
Board without justification or in bad faith, or for the purpose
of harassing the Union. He was lawfully seeking aid of the
Board. His journey to the Board and the events which
motivated it were not a "plainly internal affair of the union."
It is clear that the public interest as expressed in the Act
required that Tarantino be afforded "unimpeded access to the
Board" to lodge his complaint, prompted as it was, by events
which were of the Union' s doings. The charge filed by
Tarantino was on its face and in substance one within the
ambit of Section 7 of the Act. Nothing has been presented by
the Respondent which remotely warrants a departure from the
result reached in N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine and
Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Its Local 22,
supra. It follows therefore that by expelling Tarantino from
membership in the union for filing charges against it with the
Board without exhausting internal union remedies, the Union
committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of
10 Tarantino testified "A man that can't read and write made
$25,000." In 1967, Tarantino earned $9,718 81
I 1 The Respondent advanced three other contentions as follows
1. Section 7 of the Act does not protect a member of a union
from filing a charge with the National Labor Relations Board
2. The proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A ) protects the union from
conduct such as in the instant case
3 Section 101(a)(4) of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act, expressly authorized the union to expel members for
failing to exhaust internal remedies.
but stated as to these contentions
The first three defenses of the union were specifically raised in
NLRB v Marine and Ship Building Workers 391 U S 418, and will
not be discussed at length in this Brief The Supreme Court in that
case fully considered these arguments and made its ruling with
respect thereto This Brief will, therefore , limit itself to the last two
points raised above
12 The provision of the Union 's constitution requiring reimburse-
ment from the member of the "full amount of costs incurred" by the
Section 8(b)(1)(a) of the Act. Of this, there can be no longer
any lingering doubt. NL.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine
and Shipbuilding Workers, supra.
In drawing the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
the Trial Examiner has considered and rejected the Respond-
ent's contentions 4 and 5 set forth in its brief to the Trial
Examiner, to wit.
4. The unfair labor practice charge filed by Tarantino in
Case No. 22-CB-1225 was frivolous, knowingly without
merit and was not filed in good faith.
5. The subject matter of said charge involved internal
matters of union, and therefore, did not involve matters
governed by Section 7 of the Act."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section
I, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Employers set forth in section II, 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 obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE RECOMMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act 12
The record indicates that the Union has a membership of
around 8,000. Less that 450 were present at the meeting at
which Tarantino was expelled. If such meeting is typical of the
number of members who attend a regular union meeting, the
recommended notice posted for 60 days may never reach all of
the membership. Thus the Trial Examiner recommends that
the following letter be sent by the Respondent Union to each
union member in good standing and signed by the highest
executive officer of the Union
Dear Member,
A Trial Examiner for the National Labor Relations Board
has found that Local 825 committed an unfair labor
practice when it expelled Domenic Tarantino on March 18,
1968, because, without exhausting his internal union
Union's defense of an action brought by the member against the Union
before exhausting his internal union remedies (such as the unfair labor
practice charge filed by Tarantino) suggests that the appropriate
remedy , the purpose of which is to effectuate the policies of the Act
and cure the effects of its violation by "measures designed to recreate
the conditions and relationships that would have been had there been
no unfair labor practice " (see Creutz Plating Corporation . 172 NLRB
No 1), here include an award of attorney's fees and costs for the
charging party and the Government which were necessitated by the
Union's willful disregard of Tarantino 's rights guaranteed by the Act
See Local No 149, International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-AFL-CIO) v
American Brake Shoe Co , 298 F 2d 212 (CA 4), Baer v United
Automobile Workers (AFL-CIO) Local 549, supra , N.L.R.B. v Mastro
Plastics Corporation 261 F 2d 147 (C.A 2), West Texas Utilities Co v
N.L R B , 206 F.2d 442. 448 (C.A.D.C.), cert denied 346 U.S 855,
N L R B v R.D. Nesen 211 F 2d 559, 564 (C.A. 9), cert denied 348
U.S. 820.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 825 959
remedies , he filed an unfair labor practice charge against the
Umon alleging that the Umon had discriminated against him
when it failed and refused to refer him for employment
from its exclusive hiring hall.
The National Labor Relations Act provides that members
of labor organizations, including Local 825, may file unfair
labor practice charges against a union with the National
Labor Relations Board even though they do not first
exhaust internal union remedies . It is against the law for the
union to expel them if they do.
What Local 825 did in expelling Domenic Tarantino from
membership in the Union has been found to have been
wrong and the Union is correcting this wrong by reinstating
Domenic Tarantino to union membership without loss of
any status as a member.
The Union will not commit the same offense in the
future. All of its members are free to exercise all the rights
which are guaranteed to them by the National Labor
Relations Act without fear of expulsion from membership
in the Union or any other penalty. This is true even though
an unfair labor practice charge is filed against the Union.
The Union will endeavor to protect the rights of all its
members in this regard.
Fraternally,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Building Contractors Association of New Jersey is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local No. 825, AFL-CIO, is , and has been at all times
material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
3. By expelling Domenic Tarantino from membership in its
organization because Tarantino had filed unfair labor practice
charges with the Board without first exhausting his internal
union remedies , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
(a) Upon request, reinstate Domenic Tarantino to member-
ship in its organization without requiring payment of back
dues which is shown at the compliance stage to be regularly
allocable to the cost of insurance premiums, pension contri-
butions, and other welfare benefits accruing to Respondent's
members, to the extent that benefits such as life insurance,
health and medical insurance and benefits, and the like cannot
be made retroactively for Domenic Tarantino, Respondent shall
reimburse Tarantino for any expenses or losses with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum suffered as a result of the
absence of such benefits plus the proportion of Tarantino's
dues which should have been allocable to the payment of
premiums for the purchase of such benefits; and Respondent
shall otherwise comply with that part of this decision entitled
"The Recommended Remedy."
(b) Post at its business office and at all other places where
notices to members are customarily posted, in conspicuous
places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "' 3
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 22, shall, after being duly signed by
official representatives of Respondent, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for a period 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.'"
13 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In
the further event that the Board 's Order is 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 "
14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 22, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is
recommended that the Respondent, International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local No 825, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1 Cease and desist from.
(a) Expelling employees from membership in its organi-
zation because they have filed unfair labor practice charges
with the Board against it or its officials without first
exhausting their internal union remedies.
(b) In any like or related manner, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed employees
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found
will effectuate the policies of the Act-
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 825, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the 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 expel employees from membership in our
organization because they have filed unfair labor practice
charges with the National Labor Relations Board against us
or our officials without first exhausting their internal union
remedies.
WE WILL reinstate Domenic Tarantino upon applica-
tion to membership in our organization without loss of any
status as a member because of our expulsion of Tarantino
from membership and we will reimburse him with interest
thereon for any losses or expenses suffered because of the
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
absence of certain benefits during the period of his
expulsion in accordance with a Recommended Decision of a
Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL No. 825, AFL-CIO
(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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Federal Building,
16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102,
Telephone 645-3240.