Local 334, Laborers'Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 26, 1970183 N.L.R.B. 1210 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation