Local 507, Int'l Hod Carriers' Building, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 6, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1090 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 507 International Hod Carriers ' Building and Common Laborers ' Union of America , AFL-CIO [W. E. Jones Con- struction ] and George S . Ferrell , Jr. and Lloyd Bates. Cases Nos. 21-CB-1818-1 and 21-CB-1848-.. February 6, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 26, 1962, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and counsel for the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error has been committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,2 con- clusions, and recommendations, as modified herein. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the modification noted below.3 r The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, as the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties i We note, as implicitly found by the Trial Examiner, that the hiring hall provisions of the current master agreement between the Southern California General Contractors and the Southern California District Council of Laborers provide for exclusive referral by the Union. 3 Backpay shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing S Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716 For the reasons stated in his dissent in that case, Member Leedom would not award interest on backpay, and does not approve the award here INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding involves allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 135, 73 Stat. 519, herein called the Act, and is based upon a consolidated complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on May 21, 1962, and charges filed by two individuals, respectively, on March 26, 1962. The Respondent in its duly filed answer denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing, with the General Counsel and the Respondent present and participating, was held on July 16 and August 13, 1962, in Los Angeles, California, before Trial Examiner William E. Spencer. On request of the Respondent time for filing briefs was extended from September 17 to Octo- ber 2, and on or before this latter date the General Counsel filed a brief. 140 NLRB No. 103. LOCAL 507 INT'L HOD CARRIERS' BUILDING, ETC. 1091 Upon consideration of the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Associated General Contractors of America, Southern California Chapter, herein called AGC; Building Contractors Association, Inc., herein called BCA; Engineering and Grading Contractors Association, Inc., herein called EGC; and Home Builders Association of Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties, herein called HBA, collectively called the Associations, are and each of them is, an association com- posed of building and construction contractors, herein individually called members, who are located in, and doing business in, all States of the United States. The As- sociations exist in part to negotiate contracts with and conduct labor relations for their respective members with labor organizations, including Respondent. Annually the California members of the Associations ship goods and perform services outside the State of California valued in excess of $50,000 and, in the ag- gregate, annually sell goods and perform services to other California enterprises which annually ship goods and perform services outside the State of California valued in excess of $50,000. In addition, the members of the respective Associations annually receive goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 from firms and persons located within the State of California which, in turn, annually receive goods and services from firms and persons located outside the State of California Said members of the respective Associations likewise sell goods and perform services to firms and persons located outside of California valued in excess of $50,000. The Associations and their members are, and at all times material herein have been, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 507 International Hod Carriers ' Building and Common Laborers ' Union of America, AFL-CIO, the Respondent herein, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement executed by Southern California District Council of Laborers, of which Local 507 is a part, and four employer as- sociations, AGC, BCA, EGC, and HBA, Local 507 operates a hiring hall from which it dispatches applicants for employment at the request of members of the Associa- tions, and others. No question is raised on the validity of the hiring hall provisions of the contract. It is the contention and theory of the General Counsel that on or about March 14 and 15, 1962, at a time when Local 507 was engaged in dispatching applicants for employment to employer-members of the Associations named above, it refused the request and application of George S. Ferrell, Jr., and Lloyd Bates, the Charging Parties herein, for registration on Respondent's out-of-work list because they were members of Local 300 and not of Local 507, thereby denying them employment rights in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act The defense is that Ferrell and Bates were duly and properly registered on Local 507's out-of-work list, and were denied no protected employment rights by the Respondent. The controlling issue is one of credibility for I think there is no doubt that if the Respondent, on proper application by Ferrell and Bates, denied them registration on Respondent's out-of-work list, such action would constitute a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. I The findings above are based on evidence adduced at the hearing and on official notice which I have taken on the Board's decision in Petersen Consti notion Corp , et at , 128 NLRB 969, 991, a case in which the Respondent herein was one of the respondents therein, represented there, as here, by Attorney Alexander H Schullman At the opening of the hearing herein, Respondent's attorney stipulated to the commerce facts alleged in the complaint, but later withdrew from the stipulation for the sole reason that lie claimed to have been misled by the Inclusion in the title of the case of W. E Jones Construction, a nonmember of any of the Associations He opposed the General Counsel's motion that I take official notice of commerce facts regarding the Associations found by the Board in the Petersen case, but while afforded full opportunity to do so, offered no evidence controverting the validity of those findings . H L. Townsend, 81 NLRB 739, 740 681-492-63-vol. 140-70 1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Here follows the substance of the testimony of Ferrell and Bates, mutually cor- roborative in matters that affected them and came to their attention jointly. Ferrell applied for employment with W. E. Jones Construction, hereinafter called Jones, a nonmember of the employer associations named herein, on Monday, March 12, and was given a work order by Job Superintendent Phillips who told him to take it to Local 507, and if he could get clearance from the said Local 507 he had a job. Ferrell gave the work order to one Stan Sorensen, a dispatcher for Local 507, and requested clearance for the job. Sorensen told him to return the following morning and see Business Agent McGinnis. Ferrell returned as directed, saw Mc- Ginnis, and requested clearance. McGinnis advised Ferrell that he was not entitled to clearance, and advised him to return to the Jones job and have Superintendent Phillips telephone McGinnis. Ferrell relayed McGinnis' message to Phillips. Phillips then engaged in a telephone conversation and while so engaged, Bates ap- peared at the jobsite and was waiting with Ferrell when Phillips terminated his tele- phone conversation. Phillips said he could use Bates also on the Jones job if he could get clearance from Local 507. With knowledge that Ferrell had been refused clearance by Local 507, Bates did not seek such clearance but accompanied Ferrell to offices of the District Council, of which Local 507 was a part. Business Manager Leiby of the Council was absent from his office and his secretary suggested that Ferrell and Bates telephone him later that day. They did so, explained their situation to Leiby, and Leiby advised them that while he doubted that they were entitled to clearance on the Jones job, they could register on Local 507's out-of-work list, go to the bottom of the list, and work their way up. The following morning, March 14, Bates and Ferrell went to the office of Local 507 and requested that Sorensen register them on the Respondent's out-of-work list. Sorensen examined the union books of the two men which showed, inter alia, that they were not seeking transfer into Local 507. Sorensen asked them who told them they could register on Local 507's out-of-work list and they replied, Leiby. Sorensen took their union books into an interior office and presently returned and advised them that he could not register them; he told them to go to their own union hall (Local 300) and find work there. They remained in the hiring hall for some 20 to 30 minutes and during this time heard the dispatcher announce three jobs for dispatch, jobs which they were qualified to fill, and jobs not claimed by any appli- cant for employment then in the hall. Inasmuch as their names had not been placed on the out-of-work list they were ineligible to claim these jobs. After leaving the hiring hall Ferrell and Bates communicated with Leiby, ex- plained what had happened, and Leiby advised or directed them to return to the offices of Local 507 the following morning and see James V. Brimhall, then the local's recording secretary and field manager. They did so, met with Brimhall, and advised the latter that they wished to be placed on Respondent's out-of-work list. Brimhall wanted to know who told them they could get on the list and they replied, Leiby. Brimhall said that Leiby was not running his business and he could not put everybody in ,the country on the list. Brimhall examined their union books, wrote down their names and book numbers, and told them that if they wished to do so they could return the following Monday and speak to Business Representative Mueller Ferrell and Bates left Respondent's office and did not return. According to them, McGinnis and Sorensen were present during their discussion with Brimhall. Further according to them, at no time were they advised that they had been placed on the out-of-work list. Turning now to Respondent's position, Leiby and McGinnis, mentioned in the testimony of Ferrell and Bates, did not testify. The undisputed testimony with re- spect to them is credited. Conflict, however, develops in the testimony of Brimhall and Sorensen. Respondent introduced the register of its out-of-work list for the pertinent period and this register shows Ferrell and Bates to have been entered on the said list on March 14 Sorensen, who had no independent recollection of having met with Ferrell and Bates or either, testified that the entries were made in his handwriting. The register also shows that on March 14 men were dispatched from the out-of-work list on Al available jobs Brimball and Sorensen each testified that normally, during this period, there would be some 200 to 300 men on the out-of-work list on hand during the dispatching, and that some 500 to 600 names were ahead of Ferrell and Bates on the list. Brimhall testified that he saw Ferrell and Bates at his office, rot on the morning of March 15 as they testified, but on the mornine of March 14. He testified they told him they wanted clearance for the Jones iob, that they beloneed to Local 300, and that their names were on the out-of-work list. He further testified, however, "I told them that they would have to register on the out-of-work list before we would send LOCAL 507 INT'L HOD CARRIERS' BUILDING, ETC. 1093 them out to anybody, and then they would have to go out when their name came to the top of the list." Questioned, "On the day that you spoke with them, did they put or have their name put on the out-of-work list?" he testified, "They went in the back and put their names on the list between 7:30 and 8 o'clock." He admitted that Ferrell and Bates may have shown him their union books and that he may have taken down their numbers; denied that Leiby's name was mentioned; and testified, in effect, that he fixed the date of March 14 as the date on which he saw them on the basis of the out-of-work list which shows them as registered on March 14. Brimhall and Sorensen testified that it was not uncommon for members of other locals to seek registration on Respondent's out-of-work list, and Sorensen testified that he was instructed to register every person on the list who sought such registration. The lists introduced in evidence show the registration of a nonunion member and his later dispatch to a job, and the registration of persons other than Ferrell and Bates, affiliated with Local 300, and their subsequent dispatch on jobs. However, registrants other than Ferrell and Bates affiliated with Local 300 or other locals, are shown to have had traveling or transfer cards indicating a change in their affilia- tion to Local 507. The register further shows that Ferrell and Bates were called up for dispatch on a date in April and not being present to answer the call, their names were scratched from the out-of-work lists, according to uniform practice. It is no easy task to resolve an issue of credibility when all witnesses testifying are of good presence and, with few exceptions, firm in their respective versions of the material incidents. Both Ferrell and Bates were unshaken on intensive and expert cross-examination, and their testimony did not appear to be fabricated in any part. I am of the opinion that when they first went to Respondent's offices they were primarily interested in getting clearance for the Jones job; I am also of the opinion that they believed they were unlawfully denied such clearance. Their charges which initiated this proceeding allege the said denial to have been violative of the Act. These same charges also alleged, however, an unlawful refusal by Local 507 to register them on the out-of-work list, and the General Counsel, after an investigation of the charges, alleged a violation only with respect to the latter, thereby conceding, insofar as this hearing is concerned, the lawfulness of the refusal of clearance on the Jones job.2 I cannot say that because the moving cause of their initial visit to Respondent's offices was a desire for clearance on the Jones job, they could have had no other purpose in going there and did not seek registration on the out-of-work list for any other purpose In their conversation with Leiby on March 13, Leiby expressed his doubt that they could be cleared for the Jones job but suggested that they register on Respondent's out-of-work list. Pursuant to this advice they returned to the offices of the Respondent, according to their testimony, on the follow- ing morning, March 14. Inasmuch as records produced by Respondent show them as registered on March 14, and since they would have been registered only on request, Respondent's own records amount to an admission that the request was made on that date. If, as they testified, they were refused clearance on the . ones job-and that testimony is undenied-they must have sought registration on the cut- of-work lists for referral to other work. All of this is contrary to what appears to be Respondent's contention; namely, that their visits to Respondent's offices were solely in the interest of obtaining clearance for the Jones job I find that they applied to Sorensen for registration on the Respondent's out-of-work list on March 14, as they testified they did Inasmuch as Sorensen had no independent recollection of the incident and Ferrell and Bates both did and appeared to be testifying truthfully, I further find, as testified to by Ferrell and Bates, that Sorensen after examining their union books which showed that they were not transferring into Local 507, told them that he could not register them and that they should go to their own union hall (Local 300) and find work there T also resolve the conflict in testimony between Ferrell and Bates on the one hand, and Brimhall on the other, by crediting Ferrell and Bates. It is undenied that after havina been refused registration by Sorensen, they communicated with Leiby about I Desnite the fact that the complaint contains no allegations that the Respondent un- lawfully refused Ferrell and Bates clearance on the Jones job, and that the General Counsel clearly and uneouivocally, near the opening of the hearing stated that he made no contention of unlawful conduct with respect to the said denial of clearance, Respond- ent's attorney throughout the hearing, and repeatedly, attempted to make an issue of the said denial of clearance, this, apparently, because the name "W. F Jones Construction" appears in the title of the case. I do not know why the name appears in the title of the case, or why it was not struck therefrom, but Respondent was in no way misled or prejudiced in the matter, both because of the allegations in the complaint itself and the General Counsel' s clear and unequivocal opening statement 1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the refusal and were advised by him to see Brimhall. They testified that they did so on the following morning, March 15. Brimhall testified that the interview occurred between 7 and 8 a.m. on March 14, but this testimony as to the date appears to have rested, not on his independent recollection, but on Respondent's out-of-work register. Further, if Ferrell and Bates saw Sorensen on March 14 and were refused registration by him, as they testified, and later on that same day communicated with Leiby, they could hardly have been in Brimhall's office between 7 and 8 on this date. There is no reasonable explanation of their seeking out Brimhall except that given in their testimony: their consultation with Leiby. Brimhall testified, first, that Ferrell and Bates told him that they were seeking clearance for the Jones job and also that their names were on the out-of-work register, and, second, that he told them they would have to register on the out-of-work list and after they left his office "They went in the back and put their name on the list between 7:30 and 8 o'clock." Admittedly, he did not follow them and see them actually registered. He admitted seeing their union books and that he may have taken down the numbers of their respective books, for what purpose he did not say. According to the credited testi- mony of Ferrell and Bates, both Respondent's McGinnis and Sorensen were present during this interview, but Sorensen, having no independent recollection of applica- tions for registration, made by Ferrell and Bates, could offer no corroboration of Brimhall's testimony, and McGinnis did not testify. Further, inasmuch as this interview occurred at Leiby's suggestion, I find it much more likely that his name was brought into the conversation, as testified to by Ferrell and Bates, than that it was not, as testified to by Brimhall. Upon the entire evidence, as well as on my observation of the witnesses while the latter were testifying, I find that Ferrell and Bates neither told Brimhall that their names had been registered on the out-of-work list, nor were told by Brimhall that they could have their names placed on the list I find, as testified to by Ferrell and Bates, that Brimhall, on being informed that they were there at the suggestion of Leiby, told them that Leiby was not running his business and he could not put every- body in the country on Local 507's out-of-work list, and further told them that "if they wished to do so," they could return on the following Monday and speak to Business Representative Mueller. This was neither promise nor assurance that following such an interview their names would be added to the out-of-work list. Having been advised by Sorensen on the previous day, March 14, that he would not place their names on the out-of-work list, and now, on March 15, being told by Brimhall that he could not put "everybody" on the list, Ferrell and Bates had every reason to believe that it would be futile for them to follow Brimhall's suggestion that they could return and speak to Respondent's Mueller on the following Monday "if they wished to do so " Just how, and under what circumstances, their names were actually placed on the out-of-work list I do not know, but I am convinced and find that at no time were they informed by the Respondent that their names had been placed on that list. If Sorensen had so informed them on March 14, there would have been no occasion for them to have communicated thereafter with Leiby, or to have sought an interview with Brimhall on the following day. If they were informed by Brimhall that they could put their names on the list, there is no reasonable explanation why they did not thereafter appear at the hiring hall for dispatching, inasmuch as they were seeking work. Obviously, the placing of an applicant's name on the out-of-work list while giving the said applicant every reason to believe that registration was refused him, does not satisfy the requirements of the law with respect to hiring halls. Respondent was under a duty not only to register Ferrell and Bates on its out-of-work list, with all reasonable dispatch, but to do it in such manner that they would reasonably know or assume that they had been registered. Under the circumstances of this case registration on the out-of-work list was a sham and a nullity. I find that by refusing properly to register Ferrell and Bates on its out-of-work list, the Respondent, as alleged in the complaint, engaged in conduct violative of Section8(b)(1)(A) of the Act On the evidence afforded me I am unable to find, as urged by the General Counsel, that Ferrell and Bates, had they been properly registered on the out-of-work list when they first applied. would have been dispatched on the morning of March 14 Admittedly they were in the hiring hall on that occasion for no more than some 20 to 30 minutes and there is no reason to question the evidence that had they been properly registered there still would have been some hundreds on the out-of-work list who would have had priority over them for work assignments. It is of course possible that none of these would have qualified for the jobs which Ferrell and Bates testified they heard called. with no takers, while they were in the hiring hall, but in view of the brevity of their stay in the hall and Respondent's records which show LOCAL 507 INT'L HOD CARRIERS' BUILDING, ETC. 1095 men dispatched to all available jobs on that date, I regard this testimony too incon- clusive to ground the finding sought by the General Counsel. However, Respond- ent's records show that on a date in April Ferrell and Bates were reached on the out-of-work list and would have been dispatched had they been in the hiring hall on that date. Having held that the Respondent never placed their names on the out-of-work list in a proper and lawful manner, it must follow, and is found, that the Respondent attempted to cause, and did cause, members of the Associations to discriminate against Ferrell and Bates in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employers described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and, such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.3 V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in such conduct, and take the following affirmative action: 1. Restore the names of George S. Ferrell, Jr., and Lloyd Bates to its out-of-work list, in the order in which the said names would appear had they been properly registered on March 14, 1962, and retained on the list thereafter. 2. Within 5 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, notify Ferrell and Bates, respectively, that their names have been placed on the said out-of-work list, in the order above specified. 3. Make whole Ferrell and Bates and each of them for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of the Respondent's refusal to place his name on the said out-of-work list, by the payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages on dispatch from the said out-of-work list, from March 14, 1962, to the date on which the Respondent notifies Ferrell and Bates that their names have been restored, in proper order, to the said out-of-work list, less his net earnings , if any, during said period. Loss of pay shall be computed upon a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Associations, and their members, each of them, are, respectively, and at all times material to the issues in this proceeding have been, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By its refusal on March 14, 1962, to place the names of George S. Ferrell, Jr., and Lloyd Bates on its out-of-work list, thereby making them -available for dispatch through Respondent's hiring hall, because the said Ferrell and Bates were not mem- bers of the Respondent, the Respondent has engaged in -and is engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By its failure and refusal to dispatch Ferrell and Bates from its out-of-work list, at such time or times as they would have been dispatched had their names properly and lawfully been entered on the said out-of-work list, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It has long been settled, contrary to Respondent's contention at the hearing , that in order to assert jurisdiction it need not be shown that a labor dispute disrupting commerce has actually arisen; commerce is "affected" within the meaning of the Act, if the unfair labor practices engaged in tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce . It can hardly be questioned that a labor dispute arising over the Respondent's unlawful administration of the hiring hall provisions of its contract with the Association, would affect commerce , as that term has been construed In the decisions. 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 101(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondent, Local 507, International Mod Carriers' Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, repre- sentatives, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing and/or refusing, in the administration of the hiring hall provisions of its contract with the Associations, to register in a proper and lawful manner on its out-of-work list, upon proper application, any individual or individuals because they are not affiliated with the Respondent, or in any like manner restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. (b) Causing or attempting to cause members of the Associations to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, by failing and/or refusing to dispatch from its out-of-work list, any individual or individuals who have been improperly and unlawfully denied placement on the said out-of-work list. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Forthwith register on its out-of-work list, in the manner set forth in the sec- tion above titled "The Remedy," the names of George S. Ferrell, Jr., and Lloyd Bates. (b) Within 5 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order notify the said Ferrell and Bates that their names have been registered on Respondent's out-of-work list, in the manner set forth above. (c) Make whole Ferrell and Bates for any loss of pay suffered by them because of Respondent's failure and/or refusal properly and lawfully to register their names on its out-of-work list, in the manner set forth in the section above titled "The Remedy " (d) Post at its hiring hall, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, Los Angeles, California, shall, after being duly signed by Local 507's representative or agent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to applicants for registration on the out-of-work list are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 507 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.5 4 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Deci- tsion and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" I In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR REGISTRATION ON LOCAL 507 INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS' BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO, OUT-OF-WORK LIST Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re- lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT by refusing to register on our out-of-work list in a proper and lawful manner, or in any like or related manner, restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Re- lations Act. WE WILL NOT by refusing to dispatch employees improperly and unlawfully denied placement on our out-of-work list, or in any like or related manner. cause, or attempt to cause, members of Associated General Contractors of America, Southern California Chapter; Building Contractors Association, Inc.; LOCAL 445, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1097 Engineering and Grading Contractors Association , Inc.; and Home Builders Association of Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties , to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. WE WILL make whole George S. Ferrell, Jr., and Lloyd Bates for any loss of pay they may have suffered from having been refused dispatch in a proper and lawful manner from our out-of-work list. LOCAL 507 INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS ' BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS ' UNION OF AMERICA, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 849 South Broadway , Los Angeles 14, California , Telephone No. Richmond 9-4711, Extension 1031 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc.; Colonial Carriers, Inc. Case No. 3-CC-179. February 6, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon unfair labor practice charges filed on July 27,1962, by Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc., and Colonial Carriers, Inc., herein referred to collectively as the Charging Party or as Colony, against the Re- spondent, Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Third Region, issued an amended complaint alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, charges, and notice of hearing were served upon the Respondent and the Charging Party. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged that by picketing at the premises of retail liquor stores, hotels, and restaurants, all of which are persons and employers within the mean- ing of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act, the Respondent has threatened, coerced, and restrained these persons and other persons, with an ob- ject of forcing and requiring them to cease doing business with Colony. Thereafter, the Respondent filed an answer denying the ma- terial allegations of the complaint. On October 26, 1962, all parties entered into a "Motion To Transfer Proceeding to the Board and Stipulations," waiving a hearing and the taking of testimony before a Trial Examiner, the making of find- ings of fact and conclusions of law by a Trial Examiner, and the 140 NLRB No. 105.