Local 334, Laborers'

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 1210 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 334, Laborers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO and Eurick Crayton. Case
7-CB-1921
June 26, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On February 24, 1970, Trial Examiner Welling-
ton A. Gillis issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding the Respondent had not
engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety , as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision . Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision;
the Respondent filed cross-exceptions to certain
findings of fact made by the Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
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 this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A. GILLIS, Trial Examiner: This
case was heard by me at Detroit, Michigan, and is
based on a charge and an amended charge filed on
February 25, and April 30, 1969, respectively, by
Eurick Crayton, an individual, upon a complaint,
issued on April 30, 1969, by the General Counsel
for the National Labor Relations Board, herein-
after referred to as the Board, against Local 334,
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Respond-
ent or the Union, alleging violations of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61
Stat. 136), and upon an answer timely filed by the
Respondent denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
At the hearing, all parties were represented by
counsel and were afforded full opportunity to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce
evidence pertinent to the issues, and to engage in
oral argument . Subsequent to the close of the hear-
ing, a timely brief was filed by counsel for the
Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my
observation of the witnesses , and their demeanor
on the witness stand and upon substantial , reliable
evidence "considered along with the consistency
and inherent probability of testimony " (Universal
Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 496), I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. COMMERCE
Furnco Construction Corporation is a New York
corporation with its main office and place of busi-
ness located in Buffalo, New York. It is engaged in
the business of installing refractory material for
steel producers. During the calendar year 1968,
Furnco provided services valued in excess of $7
million to customers located in several States of the
United States other than the state of New York,
and purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000,
which goods were shipped to its jobsites directly
from points outside the States in which the jobsites
were located. Great Lakes Steel Corporation, with
plants located at Zug Island and Ecorse, Michigan,
is engaged in the manufacture of steel and related
products. At all times material to this proceeding,
Furnco has been engaged, pursuant to an agree-
ment with Otto Construction Company of New
York, in the installation of refractory material in a
coke oven at Great Lakes' Zug Island, Michigan
plant, which jobsite is the only location involved in
this proceeding. The parties admit, and I find, that
Furnco is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is undisputed and I find that Local 334,
Laborers ' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Issue
Whether the Respondent, through its business
manager, Willie Carter, on or about January 21,
183 NLRB No. 123
LOCAL 334,
1969, caused Furnco Construction Company not to
employ Eurick Crayton because of the latter's in-
traunion political activities.
Facts
Pursuant to contract, Furnco arrived on the Zug
Island scene in November 1968. Prior to commenc-
ing operations, representatives of Furnco met with
the Union's business manager, Willie Carter, in a
prejob conference at which matters pertaining to
Furnco's labor requirements were discussed. At the
request of Furnco's officials, Carter supplied a list
of names from which Furnco acquired a foreman
for the job, one James Crosby, frequently referred
to as Monte Carlo. Carter was apprised of the type
labor that Furnco would need and an agreement
was reached as to the method by which laborers
and hod carriers would be sent to the job.
Basically, under this agreement , the Union
agreed to supply, upon request, all necessary labor
for the Furnco job. It was further understood that
at least 50 percent of the laborers required would
be dispatched by the Union from its hall, and that
the necessary labor over and above this figure
could be hired by the foreman or requested by him
by name from the union hall. Thus, if the job
foreman knew he would need four laborers the fol-
lowing morning, he could, if he had two men in
mind, either contact them directly or call the hall
and request them by name, at the same time asking
for two referrals by the Union. If he contacted the
men directly, he would have them report to the hall
or come to the job. In either event, under the
agreement , the employees hired on the Furnco job,
whether by the foreman or dispatched by the
Union, were required at some point to get referral
slips from the Union. It was the responsibility of the
union steward on the job to make sure that all men
going to work had a proper referral from the
Union. According to Carter, from whose testimony
the above account is taken, it was agreed that Furn-
co would let the Union know every man that goes
on the job.' In addition to this prejob agreement, it
appears that Furnco and the Union were parties to
a contract containing a 7-day union-security provi-
sion.2
Eurick Crayton, the alleged discriminatee in this
proceeding, had been a union member in good
standing of Local 334, Laborers' since 1965.
Around the first of December 1968, just prior to
being laid off for lack of work from his job with
McLouth Steel, Crayton obtained from William
i Carter contradicted himself frequently when questioned on this matter
However, as none of Furnco's officials testified in this proceeding, Carter is
the only principal involved in the prejob conference , and, therefore his
testimony is the only direct evidence of what transpired To the extent that
portions of his testimony differ from the above recitation , they are not
credited
2 However , a nonconformed typed copy of a contract , containing the
union-security provision , admitted by counsel for the Respondent to exist,
was neither located nor received in evidence While an AGC contract with
LABORERS' 1211
Ruddy, fire brick inspector at McLouth, a letter of
recommendation to present to William Wick, Furn-
co's superintendent. A week or so subsequent to his
layoff on December 14 at McLouth, Crayton went
out to the Furnco construction site, and, as Wick
was not in his office, presented the letter to William
Anderson, Furnco's timekeeper, telling Anderson
that he was seeking employment and would like to
see Wick.
Between Christmas and January 1, Crayton again
went out to the jobsite and spoke with Wick.
Crayton referred to Ruddy's recommendation, and
Wick acknowledged having heard from Ruddy
about Crayton. Crayton asked Wick if there were a
possibility of getting employment, to which Wick
replied, "yes, there was a possibility but at that time
he didn't think I could be employed because they
were having a labor dispute and they weren't hiring
anyone on the jobsite at that time."3 Wick told
Crayton to come back and see him after the labor
dispute was over, to which Crayton agreed.
Around the middle of January, Crayton, having
heard that the labor dispute had been settled, again
went out to see Wick. While waiting in an outer of-
fice to see Wick, Crayton spoke with Sam Hamil-
ton, a friend of Crayton's who was the union
steward appointed by Carter for the Furnco job.
When Crayton told Hamilton he was waiting to see
Wick about a job, Hamilton arranged for the two of
them to talk with Wick. According to Crayton's
testimony, after Wick acknowledged having talked
with Crayton before, Hamilton asked Wick if he
were going to employ him, to which Wick replied
"yes, I was thinking about it." When Hamilton
asked if Wick were going to employ him today,
Wick replied he would call Crayton later on that
evening "to verify the fact that he was going to em-
ploy me," suggesting that he might hire Crayton the
next day. When Hamilton asked Wick if it were
definite that he was going to hire Crayton "that
particular day-or week-or what have you," Wick
said he would be employing Crayton. Hamilton's
testimony concerning this conversation cor-
roborates generally Crayton's undisputed version,
except that Hamilton went further, testifying that
he pressed Wick as to his giving Crayton a definite
time, to which Wick continued to hedge by saying
he would call him that night. Wick, according to
Hamilton, then said he would have to check with
the union hall first. An argument ensued concern-
ing the fact that they were hiring, and yet Wick
wouldn't give Crayton, a union member, an answer
as to putting him on.'
Local 334 was admitted in evidence for a very limited purpose, there was
no proof that Furnco was a party to it, as asserted by the General Counsel,
and accordingly , it has not been relied on in establishing facts concerning
the prejob agreement or the referral practice, hereinafter alluded to
' The quoted portions are taken from the undisputed testimony of
Crayton
a Hamilton, in reply to a leading question on redirect examination,
testified that he heard Wick tell Crayton that he was going to put him on
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to Crayton, after Hamilton left, but
while he, Crayton, was still in Wick's office, Harvey
Moore, union member and chief stocker on the job,
whom Crayton knew, and Cameron Stewart, labor
superintendent, entered Wick's office. Wick asked
them what they thought about hiring Crayton, in-
dicating that he planned to put him on. Stewart
replied that it was all right with him. Moore, too,
registered his approval, but told Wick, "don't for-
get, you have to clear this through the hall because
of the referral agreement that we have." Crayton,
then standing, volunteered that he could get his
own referral, not to worry about that, advising that
if they would just hire him he would go down to get
his own referral. Wick replied, "okay, I will ring
you tonight," with which Crayton left, leaving his
telephone number with Wicks
Early the following morning, which I find to have
been January 21, Crayton went to the jobsite, and
when told that Wick was not in yet, Crayton spoke
to Anderson, the timekeeper. When Crayton men-
tioned that Wick had told him that he was going to
hire him that morning, Anderson said that he knew
nothing about Crayton's being employed, that
nothing had been said to him about it. Crayton left
the office for a while, spoke to some of the men,
and then went back. There he met another laborer
friend, Jake Small, who told him that he had
received a referral that morning, and that he, and
two other men were going to be hired. Shortly,
Hamilton came in. Hamilton, who had learned from
Crosby the night before that there would be three
referrals the next morning, asked Crayton if he
were one of the three men who were going to be
hired. Crayton said he did not know, that he was
waiting to find out. Hamilton said, let us find out,
and proceeded to Anderson and asked if Crayton
was supposed to go to work. Anderson replied that
"he was not to sign Mr. Crayton up," that he had
instructions from Wick not to sign Crayton up.6
After the three referrals left to go to work,
Hamilton and Crayton discussed the matter with
Wick in the latter's office. Hamilton commenced by
asking Wick why he had not put Crayton to work.
Wick answered, saying that "he would have to
check with the hall first.... he has to check with
Willie (Carter) first." Wick replied further that he
was going to put Crayton to work but that he had to
check with Willie first. Hamilton told Wick that he
had a right to hire whomever he wanted, that he
had a right to hire Crayton. Wick replied that
"every time he has to check with the hall or he had
to check with Mr. Carter." When Wick
5 None of those present during this conversation testified in this proceed-
ing with the exception of Crayton Thus, the latter's testimony stands un-
refuted
6 The above recitation is taken from the testimony of Hamilton Crayton
testified that, in response to his question, Anderson told Hamilton that he
did not know
' The above quotes are taken from the testimony of Hamilton
° The quoted portions are taken from the credited testimony of Hamil-
ton Carter initially denied having received a phone call from Hamilton
reemphasized the fact that he wanted a referral be-
fore putting Crayton on, Hamilton told Wick that,
if he would give Crayton the job, he (Hamilton)
would go down to the hall and get a referral from
Carter for Crayton. Wick again replied that he
wanted to check with Carter first.7
In addition to corroborating Hamilton as to this
conversation, Crayton testified that during this con-
versation he reminded Wick that he had told him
the night before that he was going to hire him, and
asked Wick what was wrong, was Carter blocking
him for the job. Wick replied, "look, I just got
through with one dispute ... I tell you I am going
to put you on but I have got to clear it through the
hall." At some point, Crayton showed Wick Section
C of an AGC agreement, heretofore alluded to, in
support of his position that Wick had a right to em-
ploy him. Crayton, who was getting angry, asked
Wick if he had anything against him personally,
and, receiving a negative reply, asked Wick for his
letter of recommendation back from Ruddy. Wick
complied, and in leaving, Crayton told Wick he was
going to call Ruddy and tell him the kind of deal
Wick was giving him.
Hamilton and Crayton left Wick's office and
went to a public telephone nearby. Hamilton called
Carter and told him that Crayton was out at Furnco
and that Wick said he would put Crayton to work if
he would give him a referral. Carter answered
Hamilton, saying that "whether brother Rick, my
brother, or whoever it may be, they have to bring a
referral from the hall first before they go to work."
With this the phone conversation ended, and
Hamilton, referring Crayton's assertion of being
blocked by Carter, told Crayton, "I see what you
mean."8
A few days later, Crayton returned a phone call
from Moore, who told him that he had talked with
Wick about his hiring him. Moore told Crayton that
he felt sure Wick was going to hire him, and sug-
gested that Crayton go down to the hall and get a
referral.9 Crayton replied that "in order for me to
go to the hall and get a referral ... I would like for
Mr. Wick to say he was going to employ me, and
then I would go down to get one."
The following morning, around 8 a.m., Crayton
went to the jobsite, mentioned the Moore
telephone call to Hamilton and told Hamilton that
he would go to the hall and get a referral if Wick
definitely was going to hire him. An hour or so
later, Crayton talked with Wick in his office in
the presence of Stewart, Hamilton, and a Super-
intendent Michaels. Michaels asked Crayton
concerning Crayton When shown his pretrial affidavit indicating the con-
trary, however, Carter admitted that Hamilton called him. I credit Hamil-
ton's testimony on this matter This was but one of several inconsistencies
between Carter 's testimony and his pretrial sworn affidavit Throughout his
testimony , Carter was evasive and continually contradicted himself His
testimony is not to be believed , unless specifically credited.
° On cross-examination , Crayton testified that Moore said that, in
discussing the problems with Wick, "they" felt that the best way for
Crayton to get employment was for him to get a referral from the hall.
LOCAL 334, LABORERS' 1213
what he wanted, and Crayton alluded to the phone
call from Moore the previous evening and said that
he was there to see about getting employment so
that he could go to the Local and get a referral for
the job. Michaels reported that he knew nothing of
Moore's phone call, and that the only way he could
get on Furnco's job was to go down to his Local
and get a referral . That ended the conversation.
Analysis and Conclusion
The General Counsel contends that, for reasons
relating to an intraunion dispute between Crayton
and Business Agent Carter, the Union through its
agent Carter, caused Furnco not to employ Crayton
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2).1° The
Respondent , in denying the allegation , asserts that
Crayton neither went to the hall looking for work
nor applied to Furnco's foreman on the job, and
therefore the Union had nothing to do with
Crayton's failure to obtain employment at Furnco.11
While recognizing the fact that both the Respond-
ent's tenants are correct, the General Counsel re-
lies on circumstances surrounding Crayton's failure
to land a job at Furnco.
Thus, the evidence reveals that Crayton has at all
times since 1965 been a dues-paying, book-carrying
member in good standing of Local 334. During the
years 1965, 1966, and through December 1967,
Crayton obtained referrals apparently with regulari-
ty from the union hall, and from Carter in particu-
lar, who was then job dispatcher. During this
period, when out of work, Crayton, like others,
would go down to the hall, and inquire if there were
any work available, and frequently get sent out on
referral. In May of 1967, Carter was elected busi-
ness manager of Local 334, at which time, Crayton
was Carter's campaign manager and, apparently,
good friend. At some point thereafter Crayton and
Carter had differences, which, according to Carter,
stemmed initially from Crayton's desire to be made
job dispatcher. In February 1968, Crayton went to
the hall and asked Carter for a referral. Carter told
Crayton that he would have to wait his turn In
March 1968, Crayton again asked Carter for a
referral, and Carter told him "you wouldn't put fuel
on a fire that is burning down your house."12
Thereafter, Crayton attempted to get jobs on his
own, without referral from the union.
On November 5, 1968, Crayton and another
union member, James Carter, both of whom had
been elected to the union negotiating committee in
January 1968, filed charges against Carter, who was
also the chairman of the committee, stemming from
differences with Carter in January and February
1968, in the conduct of contract negotiations, and
charging, inter alia, that Carter had caused them to
be removed from the negotiating committee as of
February 28, 1968. On January 10, 1969, the
union's trial board rendered its written decision
finding Crayton's charges to be without merit and
holding that Carter had not violated the Union's
constitution, which decision was, at the time of this
hearing, pending appeal with the International's Ex-
ecutive Board in Washington, D C.
While the complaint does not allege the existence
of an illegal referral arrangement between Furnco
and the Union, a resolution of the basic issue con-
cerning Crayton can hardly be made without an ap-
praisal of the facts concerning the practice by
which Furnco obtained its labor supply, and the
part that Willie Carter played therein. Thus, the
record reflects that, in practice, no employee could
secure work on the Furnco job without obtaining a
clearance from the Union. Carter testified that all
men working at Furnco, some 84 or 85, had to have
a referral from the Union and Hamilton testified
that, pursuant to instructions from Carter, he never
let anybody go to work without a referral " until I
contacted Mr. Carter. 1113
Concerning the Union's referral operation, the
evidence establishes that Willie Carter, personally,
not only runs the Union but controls the operation
of that practice as well. Thus, each morning,
between 7:30 and 9 a.m., laborers gather at the
union hall seeking referral to available jobs. Nor-
mally, Carter himself goes downstairs to the hall
and, from among those present, fills the referral
requests on hand. Occasionally, when there are but
one or two referral requests, Carter's assistant will
get the man and bring him to Carter's desk for the
referral. While the Union keeps a record on all men
referred to jobs, ostensibly for the purpose of en-
forcing union-security provisions of existing con-
10 Sec 8 ( b)( I )(A) in pertinent part reads
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-(I) to restrain or coerce ( A) employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7
Sec 8(b)(2) reads in pertinent part
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents- ( 2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) or to dis-
criminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in
such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground
other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees
uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining member-
ship
Sec 8 ( a)(3) reads in pertinent part
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-(3) by discrimina-
tion in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor organization
One of the difficulties in getting to the truth of the matter involved in
this proceeding is that none of Furnco's officials, other than Crosby who
was a union man and ob tained the foreman 's job by way of Carter, testified
herein Neither the General Counsel nor the Respondent chose to call
Wick and other company people with whom many of the alleged conversa-
tions were had
"Thus, December 1967 was the last time Crayton received a referral
from the union
"Hamilton testified that on occasions, he has called Carter and received
an "okay " from him to put on a man that the general foreman wanted, with
the referral slip coming later
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tracts, the Union does not keep an out-of-work list
or any list of men available for referral. Nor does it
keep a book for men to sign."
Carter testified that he always knew who was
referred out from his Union. The extent to which
Carter personally controls the Union's 7,500 mem-
bers and its referral system is revealed by the fact
that recently during an extended illness, Carter
made referrals from his bedside in the hospital.15
Carter testified that this practice was followed in
referring men to the Furnco job.
Under all of the circumstances, including the fact
that the union steward on the job, Hamilton, in the
performance of his duties as an agent for the
Union, would not permit a man to go to work
without a referral from the Union or an "okay"
from Carter, that Furnco's general superintendent,
Wick, would not authorize the hiring of a man
without checking with Carter,'6 and that Carter, in
reply to Hamilton's telephone request on Crayton's
behalf, asserted that "they have to bring a referral
from the hall first before they go to work," it is ap-
parent that there existed an implied understanding
or tacit arrangement between Wick and Carter to
the effect that all men working on the Furnco
jobsite would have union approval. Such an in-
ference of approval is warranted notwithstanding
that it goes slightly beyond that which the evidence
shows was agreed to by the parties during their
prejob conference."
Now, applying the facts surrounding Crayton's
job efforts at Furnco to the referral arrangement
practices by Furnco and the Union, it is evident
that the Union's approval, either in the form of a
referral slip from the hall or an oral tentative
"okay" from Carter was a necessary requisite for
Crayton's obtaining a job with Furnco. Whether or
not Crayton would have received either is, at this
point, open to conjecture. Crayton, familiar as he
was with the Union's general practice of referral
with area contractors, was aware of the procedure
for securing work. There were three avenues open
to Crayton in an attempt to obtain work at Furnco.
He could have presented himself at the union hall
and requested of Carter a referral to Furnco. He
chose not to follow this procedure without first
securing a positive job commitment at Furnco.
Crayton's fears of futility in following this path
14 Apparently, at some time Carter did keep a referral list of some sort,
for he testified that he had been told to do away with such a list Just when
the list was abandoned is not known Carter hedged all over the place on
this, testifying that it did not exist during the period here involved, yet, in
his affidavit , signed March 18, 1969, he stated that Crayton never came to
the union hall and put his name down on a list of people waiting for refer-
ral
5 Carter testified that he ran his office from the hospital and that
laborers seeking work came to the hospital for referrals
16 While recognizing that much of Crayton's testimony as it relates to
conversations with Wick is heresay as to the Respondent Union, there is no
such infirmity with respect to the testimony of Hamilton, Respondent's
union steward , concerning conversations with Wick Accordingly, Hamil-
ton's testimony concerning Wick's reiterated statement to Hamilton, in
Crayton's presence , that "everytime he has to check with the hall or he had
to check with Mr Carter," constitutes direct evidence as to Wick's un-
might be considered well-founded. His failure to
secure job referrals during 1968 following his politi-
cal clash with Carter, coupled with Carter's state-
ment to Snead Upshaw, union member, in the
presence of others in March 1968, wherein he
vowed that Crayton "will not get no work out of
me," would tend to support Crayton's feelings that
Carter was not about to give his consent.18
His second option was to apply for work at the
gate with the job foreman, Crosby, in whom the
responsibility for all hiring and firing had been
placed by Wick. Crayton, for reasons best known to
himself, chose not to seek out Crosby. This, too,
might well have been less than satisfactory for
Crayton, for, as Crosby testified, when a man came
out to the job looking for work, normally he
(Crosby) would send him away "because you can
get the phone number, because the Company itself,
Mr. Wick, didn't want the men hired from the gate.
They wanted them to come from the hall.""
In any event, Crayton, armed with a letter of
recommendation, attempted to obtain employment
directly from Wick, Furnco's general superintend-
ent. In this regard, a simplification of the facts
reveals that Wick, while falling just short of giving
Crayton a firm job commitment, continually
hedged by asserting that he had to clear it with the
Union first. Notwithstanding Wick's alleged ut-
terances concerning Crayton's employment and his
implication that he would check with the Union,
the fact remains that there is no evidence of any
kind from which it might be inferred that Wick ever
contacted Carter concerning Crayton's employ-
ment, much less that he received from Carter an
admonition not to hire Crayton. In fact, if Crosby
were to be believed, it is possible that Wick never
intended to clear Crayton with the Union. Crosby
testified to a conversation with Wick and Moore,
chief stocker, in the former's office during the first
part of January. Wick, stating that Crayton had
spoken to him about a job, asked Crosby what type
fellow Crayton was and whether he would be
willing to hire Crayton. Crosby answered, saying
that he did not want Crayton, justifying his lack of
approval on the ground that, because of a past in-
cident involving the two on another job, he did not
feel that Crayton and Moore would get along.20
derstanding of Furnco's obligation
'r The fact that an employer may contact directly, or through the union
by name, up to 50 percent of its needed labor does not minimize the
union's part in the hiring process if, in fact, as here, it is understood that
those contacted or requested by name must obtain referral slips from the
hall or an "okay " from the big man in the union as a requisite for obtaining
or holding a job with the employer
's The quotation is taken from the unrefuted and credited testimony of
Upshaw
19 As noted earlier, Crosby was one of several union men that Carter had
recommended for the foreman 's Job at Furnco
20 According to Crosby, Moore, at some point, had told him that on an
earlier job , Moore had been working on the blast furnace Shortly after
Crayton was hired, Moore was elevated to subforeman Crayton allegedly
then attempted to pull a strike among the men in an effort to get Moore
demoted
LOCAL 334,
Wick replied that if he did not want him, the Com-
pany would not hire him.
Regardless of where the equities in this case may
appear to lie, the fact remains that Crayton did not
apply at the union hall for a referral to the Furnco
job, and, accordingly, he was at no time refused a
referral.21 Nor, apart from the referral practice,22 is
there evidence that would show that the Union,
through Willie Carter or otherwise, prevailed upon
or attempted to cause Furnco not to employ
Crayton.
Therefore, on the record as a whole, I find and
conclude that the General Counsel has failed to
prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence
that the Respondent on or about January 21, 1969,
caused or attempted to cause Furnco Construction
Company to discriminate against Eurick Crayton in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
t1 Hamilton's attempted telephone clearance with Carter on Crayton's
behalf, resulting in Carter stating that everyone had to bring a referral from
the union hall before he could go to work , hardly qualifies as a proper
request for referral by Crayton
LABORERS' 1215
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record in this case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Local 334, Laborers' Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. Furnco Construction Corporation is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint herein be
dismissed in its entirety.
12 Having found that Crayton made no attempt to obtain a referral from
the Union, in the absence of a specific complaint allegation, I deem it out-
side my authority to pass upon the propriety of the referral practice exer-
cised by the Union and Furnco