Local 7, Int'l Assn. of Bridge, Structural, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 30, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 925 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

LOCAL 7, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL, ETC. 925 by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Western Wirebound Box Co., the latter willing, in places where notices to its employee are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after signature by Respondent as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.iz 32 If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 3-3, AFL-CIO, TO OUR OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF WESTERN WIREBOUND Box Co. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing of entrances to Western Wirebound Box Co. WE WILL NOT prevent personnel or automobiles from entering the plant. WE WILL NOT strike at or damage automobiles or property of employees. WE WILL NOT attack or inflict injuries upon employees. WE WILL NOT throw coffee or spit at employees. WE WILL NOT use horses as pickets. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of Western Wirebound Box Co. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, as amended, including the right to refrain from any or all concerted activities. INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 3-3, 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, 327 Logan Building, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, extension 553, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Local 7, International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO [Waghorne -Brown Com- pany] and John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock. Case No. 1-CB-793(1-2). September 30, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On March 14, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor 144 NLRB No. 90. `926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Interme- diate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and 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 made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and, recommendations, with the following additions and modifications. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent, Local 7, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Union), was re- sponsible for the work stoppage that occurred at Waghorne-Brown Company's (hereinafter referred to as Waghorne, or the Company) Saugus jobsite on September 12 and 13, 1962, and that the work stop- page was called in order to force Waghorne to discharge two nonmem- ber employees, Lydon and Craddock, whose work permits it had re- fused to renew, thereby violating Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. 2. The Trial Examiner, although making the observation that there was evidence indicating that Respondent was operating its hiring hall in a discriminatory manner, concluded that the complaint did not al- lege any such violation. Accordingly, he made no findings on the subject. The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner's con- clusion as to the scope of the complaint and the resulting failure to find an unlawful hiring arrangement or practice. We find merit in the General Counsel's exception. In our opinion, the allegations of the complaint are legally sufficient to place in issue the matter of whether the Union was a party to an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice with Waghorne-Brown which the Union operated in a discriminatory manner.' Accordingly, we shall proceed to a consideration of the issue. Albert Waghorne, a partner of Waghorne-Brown Company, testi- fied that : (1) "throughout the years, [Waghorne had] consistently used members of Local 7 . . ."; (2) "it was [company] policy to abide by the union employment practice in the area wherever we did work"; (3) it was "definitely" company policy to hire only men re- ferred or cleared by the Union; and (4) over the years Waghorne had 1 Moreover , we note that the Union , by its answer , joined issue, and that the issue was fully litigated at the hearing. LOCAL 7, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC. 927 developed a practice of obtaining employees from the Union 2 On re-cross-examination of Waghorne, during which counsel for the Re- spondent was attempting to establish that Waghorne's practice of getting its employees from the Union was a unilateral one, the follow- ing testimony was elicited : Q. So out of loyalty and out of benefit to the Company, no troubles, you elected to do this, to hire the union men, the Local 7 men...? A. That's correct. Q. But there was no specific arrangement as such? A. No written arrangement. Q. No oral arrangement. You never discussed this with the Union, or anything, did you? A. Well, through the years, I've talked with various business agents, and had minor reasons for talking with them, we always understood that we were working with them, and you always sent me men, and we always paid our health and welfare; so I think there was what you might call an understanding. That the Union was a party to this hiring arrangement or practice is further shown by the following facts : (1) During the work stop- page referred to above, Fred Ramsey, the Union's business agent, told Waghorne that "his men could not work with non-Union men"; (2) the day before the work stoppage, the Company's superintendent, Miller, who was a member of the Union, was summoned to appear before the Union's executive board which reprimanded him for not getting rid of a permit man to rehire a union man, and impressed upon him the inferior status of permit men; and (3) the Union's conduct in causing the work stoppage as a result of the Company's continued employment of Lydon and Cradock, after the Union had refused to renew their work permits. On the occasion of Lydon's referall to Waghorne's Saugus job, Business Agent Hughes came out into the union hall and asked "if there was any bookmen that wanted the job." Three, bookmen took the job, and only after the other bookmen in the hall had failed to respond to Hughes' call did Hughes refer Lydon to the job on a work permit. Similarly, when Lydon returned to the union hall to seek employment after he had been discharged by Waghorne, Ramsey came out into the hall and called for "bookmen" to fill job requests. Moreover, Ramsey admitted that if he had a job request and had a 2 Nelson Miller and James Power, Waghorne's superintendent and foreman, respectively, corroborated the testimony of Albert Waghorne concerning the Company's hiring prac- tices. Both testified that they hired only union members or men cleared and referred by the union. 928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union man and nonunion man vying for the job, "I would ask the union man first, if I knew he was a Union member." In our opinion, the foregoing evidence establishes the existence of an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice with Waghorne-Brown, under which Respondent gave union members preference in referrals over nonmembers. Respondent thereby has caused or attempted to cause Waghorne to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and has, ac- cordingly, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act .3 3. In the instant case, as more fully described in the Intermediate Report, the Union charged nonmember employees a permit fee of $2 per day worked for the privilege of getting cleared and referred under the above-described discriminatory hiring arrangement or prac- tice. Although a union may charge nonmembers a reasonable fee for the use of an exclusive hiring hall or referral system,' the Board has held that such fee becomes unlawful where the hiring hall is operated in a discriminatory and unlawful manner.' As we have found that the Union discriminated against non- members in making referrals, we find that by charging nonmember em- ployees a fee for clearance and referral under this discriminatory ar- rangement or practice, the Union further violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.' THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, in addition to those found by the Trial Examiner, we shall order Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and to affirmatively take such action as will dissipate the effects of its unfair labor practices, in addition to the remedial provisions recommended by the Trial Examiner. 8 Houston Maritime Association, Inc., at al., 136 NLRB 1222, 1223, 1225; J. J. Hagerty, Inc., et al, 139 NLRB 633. 'Local 825 , International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (H. John Homan Company )', 137 NLRB 1043; Houston Maritime Association, Inc., et al ., supra. 5Houston Maritime Association, Inc, et al, supra; Galveston Maritime Association, Inc., 139 NLRB 352; J. J. Hagerty, Inc, supra. O Member Leedom would find the above -described fee unlawful on an adidtional ground. The Board has held that where the fee charged nonmember employees for the use of the hiring hall or referral system is, to any extent , unrelated to the operation of the hall or system , such fee is unlawful. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO ( H. John Homan Company ), supra. In the instant case , union members paid no fee for the use of the hiring hall other than their regular dues which amounted to $8.50 per month for journeymen and $7 50 per month for apprentices . In the week of September 3 through 7, 1962, Lydon worked 4 days and paid the Union $8. Thus he paid in 1 week almost as much as union members paid in a month. In Member Leedom 's view, the work permit fee so far exceeds the amount paid by union members for all union services including the referral services of the hiring hall , that it is discriminatory on its face as not being reasonably related to the expense of running the hiring hall. Therefore, Member Leedom would find the permit fee violates Section 8 ( b) (1) (A) and ( 2) on this ground , in addition to the ground relied on by Members Fanning and Brown. See his dis - senting opinion in the Homan case, supra, and the Hagerty case, supra, footnote 8 See also Porter-DeWitte Construction Co., Inc., 134 NLRB 963 , 964-965. LOCAL 7 , INT'L ASSN . OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL , ETC. 929 We have found that the Respondent was a party to an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice with Waghorne -Brown, that in the operation of this hiring arrangement or practice , union members received preference in referrals over nonunion permit men, and that these nonunion permit men were charged a fee for the services of this discriminatory hiring arrangement or practice . Accordingly, we shall direct the Respondent to cease and desist from maintaining or enforcing such unlawful hiring arrangements or practices. Affirmatively , we shall order Respondent to reimburse all non- member employees who were referred to Waghorne-Browne under the above-described unlawful arrangement or practice within the 6- month period immediately preceding the filing and service of the charge in the instant case, for the fees they were required to pay in order to get and retain work permits and clearance and referral by the Union . In accordance with Board policy , we shall include an award of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on all amounts owing as determined under the provisions of this Decision and Order. The Board , upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following conclusions of law in addition to those made by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By maintaining and enforcing an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice with Waghorne-Brown Company pursuant to which union members receive preference in referrals over nonmembers , and non- members are required to pay a fee for a work permit in order to obtain clearance and referral , Local 7, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, has caused or attempted to cause Waghorne-Brown Company to discriminate against employees and, applicants for employment in violation of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act, and thereby has engaged in or is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Local 7, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Boston, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to an exclu- sive hiring arrangement or practice with Waghorne-Brown Company pursuant to which union members receive preference in referrals over nonmembers, and nonmembers are required to pay a fee for a work permit in order to obtain clearance and referral. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Waghorne-Brown Company to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against employees or applicants for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended. (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees or ap- plicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Make whole John C. Lydon, John P. Cradock, Edward Crane, and all other nonmember employees of Waghorne-Brown Company during the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of filing and service of the charge herein, by reimbursing them for all amounts paid by such individuals to the Union for work permits, clearance, and referral, to obtain and retain employment with Waghorne-Brown Company during the same 6-month period, as set forth in "The Remedy" section herein. (b) Make whole John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination prac- ticed against them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter- mediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records, reports, worklists, and other documents necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Notify John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock, in writing, that it withdraws its objections to their employment by Waghorne-Brown Company. (e) Notify Waghorne-Brown Company, in writing, that it has no objections to the hiring or employment of John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock. (f) Post at its business office and hall in Boston, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, T In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order" the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." LOCAL 7, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL, ETC. 931 shall, upon being duly signed by the Union's representative, be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members and other persons using Local 7's hiring hall are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS, AND OTHER PERSONS USING THE HIRING HALL OF LOCAL 7, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise give effect to an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice with Waghorne-Brown Company where preference in referrals is based on union member- ship and where nonmembers are required to pay a fee for a work permit in order to obtain clearance and referral. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Waghorne-Brown Com- pany to discriminate against employees or applicants for employ- ment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make whole John C. Lydon, John P. Cradock, Edward Crane, and all other nonmember employees of Waghorne-Brown Company during the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of filing and service of the charge herein, by reimbursing them for all amounts paid by such individuals to the Union for work permits, clearance, and referral, to obtain and retain employment with Waghorne-Brown Company during the same 6-month period. WE WILL make whole John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion practiced against them with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. WE WILL notify John C. Lydon -and John P. Cradock, in writ- ing, that we have withdrawn any objection to their employment by Waghorne-Brown Company. 727-083-64-vol. 144-6 0 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL notify Waghorne-Brown Company, in writing, that we have no objection to the employment of John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock. LOCAL 7, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUC- TURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, 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 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, Telephone No. Lafayette 3-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon two individual charges duly filed on September 14, 1962, by John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock, individuals , hereinafter referred to individually or as the Charging Parties, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, here- inafter called the General Counsel 1 and the Board respectively , by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston , Massachusetts ), issued his complaint dated October 29, 1962 , against Local 7, International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 7 or Respondent . The complaint alleges that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 , as amended , hereinafter called the Act. Copies of the charges, the complaint , and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon Respondent and Charging Parties. Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice , a hearing thereon was held at Boston , Massachusetts, on December 10 and 11, 1962, before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson. All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel , and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard , to produce , examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues , and were advised of their rights to argue orally upon the record and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclu- sions or both. Oral argument was waived . Briefs were received from Respondent and General Counsel on February 11, 1962. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF WAGHORNE -BROWN COMPANY Charles Waghorne , Heber Wells, John J . Connolly, and Paul C . Danforth , herein- after jointly referred to collectively as Waghorne , are and have been at all times material herein, copartners doing business under the trade name and style of Waghorne-Brown Company. At all times herein mentioned , Waghorne has main- tained its principal office and place of business at 44 Bromfield Street , in the city of Boston , county of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts , and performs services both within and without the Commonwealth of Massachusetss , and is now 1 This term specifically includes the counsel appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing. LOCAL 7, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL, ETC. 933 and has been continuously engaged at said places of business in providing and per- forming construction building materials and services . Waghorne's construction sites, located at Saugus and Quincy, Massachusetts , are its only worksites involved in this proceeding . During the past 12 months, Waghorne , in the course and conduct of its business operations , performed services valued in excess of $50 ,000 in States outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Waghorne is, and has been at all times material herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE RESPONDENT Local 7, International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Waghorne and has its principal office and place of business at 1117 Columbus Avenue, in the city of Boston , county of Suffolk , Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The facts In August 1962 , Waghome was engaged in erecting a roof on a building in Saugus, Massachusetts, under a subcontract providing a penalty for delay in the completion thereof. As of this time there was a great deal of construction work in the Boston area with result that the Waghorne job suffered an undue amount of turnover so that the job was'short-handed much of the time. For at least a part of the job Waghorne had a standing order for men at the Respondent's union hall. There was no contract, written or oral, extant between Waghorne and Respond- ent although for many years Waghorne had exclusively employed union men on its jobs, many of whom came through the union hall. The foreman on the Saugus job was one James F. Power , himself a strong union man. Acting upon the suggestion of a member of Respondent, John C. Lydon went to the union hall on August 27, 1962,2 where he asked John Hughes, one of Respond- ent's two business agents, for work on a union work permit. Hughes inquired if Lydon had worked on union jobs previously. As Lydon had worked the previous Friday on such a job, Lydon paid Hughes the sum of $2 and was given a work permit by Hughes. Sometime later that day, after all but three of the union card men in the hall had declined work at the Saugus job of Waghorne, Lydon was asked and accepted the work. He drove out to the job with the three "card" men. The permit which Hughes gave to Lydon read as follows: OFFICIAL PERMIT CC 759560 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS Local Union No. 7 Aug. 27, 19 62 This permit issued to John Lydon entitles him to work until Sept. 4 19 62 and is void thereafter unless renewed by Examining Board or Business Agent. Steward Collect $ For Waghorne Brown Only Issued by Henry Hughes On this same Monday, August 27, Cradock, who had been working for several -weeks on the union job at the Prudential Center for the American Bridge Company, also appeared at Respondent's hall to renew his permit. Hughes requested a $10 contribution from Cradock who pleaded lack of money. Hughes then inquired how much Cradock was being paid on the job. When Cradock told him it was $3 per hour,3 Hughes stated that the price for the permit would be $5. Again Cradock I A-11 dates herein are In the year 1962 unless otherwise specified ' At this time journeymen Iron Workers received $4 31 per hour while apprentices received $3. 934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pleaded no money and Hughes agreed that Cradock should pay double the follow- ing week. Hughes thereupon wrote out a new permit for Cradock which was exactly the same as -Lydon's, supra, except that it was marked for "AM. Bridge only." On Friday, August 31, Snook, Respondent's steward on the Saugus job, collected $3 apiece from each of the permit men on the job and assured them that there was no need for them to report at the union hall the following Monday as had been customary to renew their permits as the business agent had authorized him to collect the money and to renew the permits for the men on the job. Snook assured the permit men that this arrangement had been worked out because Waghorne super- intendent, Nelson W. Miller, had complained that requiring the permit men to report at the union hall each Monday in order to renew their work permits took too much time from the job. As the permit men on the job (Lydon and Crane) paid Snook their $3 each that Friday, they also signed their names and the amount of money each paid on a sheet of paper with the typewritten heading "Voluntary Contribution to the Building Fund." 4 Thereafter Lydon and Crane continued to work for Waghorne through Septem- ber 7 (after Labor Day, September 3) without personally going to the union hall in order to renew their permits. Ramsey acknowledged that Steward Snook turned the money which he had so collected over to the Union the same afternoon he collected it. Just prior to Labor Day, September 3, a mutual friend inquired of Power if he had a job for John P. Cradock who was then still working on permit from Respondent for American Bridge Company. Foreman Power who was desperate for men at this time agreed to hire Cradock at journeymen's wages. Cradock reported for work at the Saugus job on September 5. Business Agent Hughes happened by this Saugus site that same morning and cleared Cradock for work on the Saugus job at the request of Power. On the morning of September 6 a man named Walsh appeared at this Saugus job. Walsh had worked for Waghorne at Saugus for a few days up to and including August 31. However, Walsh did not appear for work after Labor Day until Septem- ber 6-nor had he notified Waghorne that he would be absent for a period after Labor Day. When Walsh appeared at the site on September 6, he demanded his job back from Miller who refused on the ground that he then had a full crew, having replaced Walsh due to his unexplained absence. Walsh demanded that Miller discharge a permit man in order to make a place for him. Walsh maintained that permit men were "dirt " Miller refused. Walsh departed 5 A few hours thereafter Respondent Business Agent Fred M. Ramsey appeared on the Saugus job following up the complaint Walsh had made to him that Miller refused to discharge a permit man in order to put him back to work. Ramsey told Miller, "You're going to have to rehire this man [Walsh]." When Miller replied that he did not have to hire anybody, Ramsey ended the conversation by threatening, "Well, you'll hear from the Executive Board." Later that same day Power saw Ramsey in conversation with Steward Snook and, suspecting the subject matter of that conversation, joined the conversation with a "heated" defense of Miller for refusing to rehire Walsh After a rather acrimonious discussion which included some adverse criticism of Ramsey, Ramsey concluded the conversation by informing Power that he was "a fool" and that Ramsey was going to bring Miller, a member of Respondent, before the executive board 6 Again on that Friday, September 7, Snook collected a sum of money equal to $2 per day for each day worked from the permit men on the Saugus job assuring them again that they did not need to report to the union hall on Monday in order to renew their permits due to the arrangement he and the business agent had made whereby Snook would renew the permits. The usual sheet of paper headed in pencil "Vol. Contr. to Bldg. Fund September 7, 1962" showed that permit men Lydon, Crane, and all others paid $8 7 whereas Cradock paid $2. On Wednesday, September 11, Miller appeared before the business agents and the executive board summoned there by Ramsey in regard to Walsh's grievance. Miller was informed that he was to fire permit men in order to make a place for a 'Similar sheets signed by permit men as they contributed and had their permits re- newed were headed on occasion "Voluntary Contribution to a Worthy Cause." c Walsh's tale was that his brother had died in New York City, that lie had had to go to the funeral and that he had asked another employee on the Saugus job to report that matter to Waghorne. The facts show that no report had been reported to Waghorne. 0 Subsequently Ramsey also had Power before the executive board allegedly for insult- ing Snook. 7 Due to Labor Day the men had only worked 4 days that week. LOCAL 7, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC. 935 union card man and that permit men were "dirt." Also during this meeting it de- veloped that Snook had been collecting the money from the permit men and renewing their permits. According to Ramsey, Snook was severely criticized for "stupidly" collecting the money 8 The executive board meeting ended with Miller being told that he would hear from them "later." e The next morning, Thursday, September 12, Snook informed the three permit men then on the Saugus job that they would have to report at the union hall that morning in order to renew their permits. He also told Power that "I was told the permit men were to go into the Union to renew their permits." There Ramsey renewed the permit for Ed Crane, who also worked as a city police- man at night, but refused to renew the permits of Lydon and Cradock on the grounds that their permits had expired and that they had not obeyed the rules and regulations of the Union, i.e., to report every Monday morning to renew said permits at the union hall io Snook, the other card men, and Power continued to work at the Saugus job until about 9 a.m. when Crane returned with his permit renewed and began working with them. About 9:30 Lydon and Cradock reported back that Ramsey had refused to renew their permits. Considerable discussion ensued. Power told the group that, in his opinion, Lydon and Cradock had paid their permit fees and had their permits renewed on the jobsite by Steward Snook just as Crane had so that they had just as much right to work as Crane or anyone else. When Power proposed to permit the two men to work, Snook told Power that the rest of the men (including Crane) would not work as long as Lydon and Cradock were on the job because they were nonunion." The result was that Power, Lydon, and Cradock worked the rest of the day. Snook, the card men, and Crane refused to work and about noon left the jobsite. Poser reported the stoppage to Waghorne who telephoned Ramsey and asked that Ramsey order the unionmen back to work. Ramsey was noncommittal. Be- fore Snook and the others departed the Saugus jobsite, Snook received a telephone call from Ramsey. Snook and the others departed soon after this telephone call. Early on the morning of September 13, Miller telephoned Ramsey seeking to get assurances from him that the union card men would work on the Saugus job so that it could be completed without the imposition of a penalty." Ramsey's answer was that he "understood" that the card men would not work with Cradock and Lydon i2 Miller requested Ramsey to send him two unionmen to "replace" Lydon and Cradock. Ramsey refused to "replace anyone" but stated that he would send two men if requested to do so. Miller requested the two men. Miller and Power were at the jobsite for the commencement of work that morning. Snook and the card men again refused to work with Lydon and Cradock because their permits had not been renewed. Power was dispatched to the union hall to endeavor to get the cards renewed. Ramsey would not even talk to him about the matter despite Power's apology for his "belligerence" of the day before. Nor would Ramsey condescend to speak with either Lydon or Cradock. 8 Ramsey testified that this was the first notice he had that Snook was purporting to renew the permits However, Ramsey also testified that Snook was turning over the money so collected together with the signed sheets of paper to the Union the same after- noon he collected. The Trial Examiner found difficulty in crediting much of Ramsey's testimony for reasons discussed snira. 8 This record fails to disclose any further communication from the executive board to Miller. 10 Once again Ramsey was inconsistent. He first testified that all permit men were re- quired to renew their permits every Monday morning at the union hall Subsequently he testified that the crowd of permit men had become so large on Monday mornings and business agents had to work so hard in renewing permits that Respondent began renewing permits in smaller groups throughout the week. Apparently this waste of time and energy irritated other employers besides Waghorne. 11 The Waghorne officials had determined the previous evening that, if the unionmen would not work with Lydon and Cradock, Waghorne would have to discharge the two in order to finish the job and prevent the contract penalty. 12 While the record shows that Ramsey and Snook were in very close communication on the Waghorne matter from its very inception, there is no direct proof that Snook and the other "ard men were withholding their services on orders of Ramsey . Respondent failed to call Snook as a witness , or to account for his absence . The facts , however, leave the clear impression that every move made by the unionmen on the job was directed by Ramsey. But as Snook was the Respondent's representative on the job , the actions of Snook and the other card men are directly imputable to Respondent. 936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Power then told Lydon and Cradock that under the circumstances then existing, Waghorne had to refuse them work in the absence of a permit because they had to complete the work on time. Lydon and Cradock then reported to the offices of Waghorne to secure their checks. One of the partners, Wells, expressed regret over their dismissal and sug- gested they see the Board. They signed a charge against the Union a day or so thereafter. About a week later the union member who had originally sent Lydon to Respond- ent's hall for work informed Lydon that Ramsey wanted to see him the next morning at the union hall.13 When Lydon got to the hall the following morning, all Ramsey would do was to allow him to sit in the union hall waiting for a job, a job which never materialized.14 A week or so thereafter Lydon was again asked to go see Ramsey at the union hall. Again he sat in the hall all morning and again he was not sent to a job.15 Lydon has never been reinstated nor received any work from Respondent. B. Conclusions So far as this Trial Examiner understand it, Respondent's defense here is that Respondent: (1) Had no contract with Waghorne. (2) Had no hiring hall. (3) Issued no work permits. (4) Received no money for issuing or renewing "identification slips." (5) Had nothing to do with the discharges here involved. Of these, only the first is correct. It was unanimously agreed that there is and was no contract existing between Waghorne and Respondent. Waghorne was free to hire its employees where it would or could. From personal preference and also for business reasons, Waghorne for years had employed on its jobs only unionmen or persons supplied through the union office. During a part at least of the Saugus job, Waghorne had a standing order for men at the Respondent's office. In fact, Lydon was sent to the Saugus job on permit by Respondent. No matter what name Respondent cares to apply to it, Respondent operates a hiring hall to which employers send requests for men and from which Respondent dispatches men to jobs. It had dispatched Lydon to the Saugus job and it also dis- patched Cradock to the American Bridge job. Whether Respondent operates this hiring hall on a nondiscriminatory basis is not an issue here.ls Respondent's brief refers to the work permit slips issued by Respondent as "identification slips." In his testimony Ramsey was more frank in calling them "work permits." However, Ramsey spent a considerable effort as a witness in trying to make it appear that these work permits were issued by Respondent solely as a recordkeeping device whereby Respondent could keep track of the permit men and could check on employer contributions to Respondent's health and welfare and pension funds. Even Ramsey's attempted explanation proved that these slips would accomplish none of these purposes. These "identification slips," so-called, were in fact nothing more nor less than referral slips issued by Respondent at its hiring hall. The evidence here makes it very clear and very definite that these referral slips were not free, as Respondent contended, but were in fact issued by Respondent to nonunion applicants for employment at a cost of $2 per day for each day the applicant worked. Apparently those men drawing only apprentice's pay received their permits at half price, or $5 per week.17 is Ramsey's version is that this union member was so dismayed at Lydon's having filed a charge against the Union that he, the union member, requested Ramsey to see Lydon. 14 Ramsey maintained that this day the Union received no requests for workmen 15 On this occasion, according to the testimony of Ramsey, Ramsey offered a choice of six jobs but he refused Lydon's demand that he be returned to the Saugus job with back- pay Ramsey also insisted, despite Lydon's denial, that a National Labor Relations Board attorney suggested Lydon's visit. The Trial Examiner credits the denial. 1e Some evidence herein would indicate that it is possible, if not probable, that referrals from the hall were made on a discriminatory basis dependent upon whether a man was a cardholder or nonunion However, as there is no such allegation in this complaint, the Trial Examiner makes no finding. 17 These fees at least verge on the exorbitant when compared to the dues of the union card men of $8 50 per month. LOCAL 7, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC. 937 With a straight face, Ramsey maintained at the hearing that these $2 per day fees were "voluntary" and were "contributions" to Respondent 's nonexistent "building fund" or to some "[unnamed ] worthy cause"-this last covers a particularly large scope and , on occasion , a multitude of sins. Ramsey's own description of the office setup in Respondent 's hall on Monday mornings as the permit men renewed their permits was particularly enlightening on the question of "voluntariness ." For the permit men to be able to reach the tables where the two business agents were renewing permits each Monday morning, it was necessary for these would-be permit men to pass a table presided over by a union member named "Forsythe" who invited each man to sign a slip of paper with his name together with the amount of his contribution figured at $2 for each day that man had worked the previous week, pay this amount to Forsythe and then pass on to one of the tables where the business agent renewed his work permit. It seems significant that these voluntary contributors were permitted no say as to the amount of his contribution nor to the recipient "worthy cause." Nor did the contributor get his permit renewed without such a "voluntary contribution." 18 It is undenied that on one Monday morning in August, one permit man asked Hughes for a receipt for his $10 "contribution ." After refusing to give the man a receipt Hughes said , "You don't have to pay, you know, it's voluntary ." When the permit man inquired about his permit, Hughes significantly added, "I don't have to give you a permit , either." The $ 10 bill was left on the table and the permit issued. In fact, the evidence proves that these so-called "voluntary contributions" were voluntary in much the same sense as citizens of the United States contribute to Internal Revenue Service annually every April 15. No matter what name Ramsey chose to use, Respondent 's work permits cost the applicant $2 per day for every day he worked. Respondent 's real defense apparently is that Respondent had nothing to do with forcing the discharges , it never ordered its members not to work with nonunion per- sonnel, and whatever action Snook and the rest of the union card holders took was their own "personal and individual" decision . Respondent also suggests in this con- nection that the work stoppage at the Saugus job resulted from bad "personal feel- ings and relationships" due to grievances and arguments in regard thereto. The only trouble with this defense is that the facts quite clearly show that the contention is not true. They also indicate that the trouble here stemmed directly from the activities of Fred M. Ramsey acting-or overacting-in his official capacity as business agent of Respondent. Apparently relations between Waghorne and Respondent had been excellent for many years , even though there was no contact between the two. Also apparently Waghorne had been dealing with Business Agent Hughes for when the present trouble began over the Walsh affair, Respondent did not even know Ramsey. Ramsey's first mistake was in taking the Walsh complaint seriously for there can be no doubt but that Waghorne was wholly justified in believing that Walsh had volun- tarily terminated his employment with it as many others had done. Then when Miller justifiably refused to accede to Ramsey's demands in regard to Walsh's reinstatement , Ramsey, acting as business agent , had Miller summoned before the union executive board in order "to straighten Miller out" as to the "rights" of card men to replace permit men at will. During this meeting on September 11 Ramsey claims to have learned for the first time that Union Steward Snook was collecting work permit fees and renewing work permits weekly . As Ramsey had to admit that Snook had been doing this for a period of at least 2 weeks and turning the money and lists over to the Union within hours to his own knowledge it is obvious that Ramsey had to know of this procedure for renewing work permits on the job and, consequently on Ramsey 's own testimony, the Trial Examiner cannot credit him in this contention regarding this being his first knowledge of the new procedure . Furthermore , Steward Snook specifically in- formed the permit men on the Saugus job, as well as Foreman Power , that the busi- ness agents had authorized him to collect the money and to renew the men's permits in this fashion . Indeed Snook actually did renew the permits this way for a period of 2 weeks . In thus renewing the work permits and collecting the money , therefore, Snook was acting as Respondent's steward and authorized agent . As Respondent failed to call him as a witness or to account for his absence , it is a fair inference, which the Trial Examiner makes , that Snook's testimony would not have been favor- able to Respondent. 11 It is true that on one occasion Cradock did secure a work permit from Business Agent Hughes without making any payment, but conditioned upon Cradoek's paying "double" the following week. 938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Obviously, therefore, Lydon and Cradock were working on September 12 and 13 on valid work permits issued by Respondent-despite Ramsey's claim to the contrary. It is noteworthy, in regard to Respondent's claim that it had nothing to do with compelling the discharges of Lydon and Cradock, that Snook was also in attendance at the executive board meeting of September 11, that Snook was, according to the testimony of Ramsey, "dressed down as well as anybody can be dressed down" for "stupidly" taking the permit money and renewing the permits, and that immediately thereafter and the following morning Snook reported to the permit men and to Power that he, Snook, "was told" to have the permit men report to the union hall in regard to their permit renewals. In other words Respondent had taken this occa- sion to warn and to instruct Snook in regard to his future actions as Respondent's agent on this Saugus job. This experience was more than a "wink or a nod" for Snook. Furthermore, it is also significant that, despite Ramsey's characterization of Snook's actions as Respondent's steward as "stupidity," Respondent failed to remove him as such steward. Snook was Respondent's steward and agent on the job Consequently when Snook led the work stoppage on the Saugus job after Wag- horne determined to work Lydon and Cradock, a work stoppage which both Snook and Ramsey based on the contention that Cradock and Lydon were nonunion in the absence of the permits which Ramsey refused to renew, the Trial Examiner must find that Snook was acting as Respondent's authorized agent and upon direct orders of Ramsey and of Respondent.19 Accordingly the Trial Examiner must find that Respondent authorized the work stoppage of September 12 and 13 by its steward ,and other card men at the Saugus job knowing of the contract penalty for delayed completion of that job in order and with the intent of forcing Waghorne to discharge Lydon and Cradock because of Ramsey's own refusal to renew their work permits in violation of Section 8(b) (2) and of 8(b) (1) (A).20 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Waghorne-Brown Company described in section I, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been further found that the Respondent forced and compelled Waghorne- Brown to discriminate against John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock on September 13, 1962, by refusing them employment due to Respondent's withdrawal and refusal of a work permit, the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondent make John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimina- tion against him to the date Respondent notifies Waghorne-Brown Company that it has no objections to his employment by said Company and issues each a work permit for such purpose less his net earnings during said period in accordance with a formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum in accordance with the Board's decisions in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. Inc., 138 NLRB 716, and Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1142. Because of the type and variety of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Re- spondent, the Trial Examiner senses an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act, in general, and hence the Trial Examiner deems it necessary to order Respondent 19 The Trial Examiner Is not unmindful of Ramsey's testimony that he urged Snook to keep the card men working on the Saugus job. In view of the testimony of Waghorne himself, the failure of Respondent to call Snook as a witness and of all the other facts in the record, the Trial Examiner finds this testimony of Ramsey to be so incredible as to be unbelievable. 20 Perhaps Respondent Is correct In attributing part, at least, of this trouble to bad "personal feelings and relationships." Unfortunately for Respondent , however, Ramsey attempted to assuage his "hurt" feelings by means of exercising his authority as an official of Respondent . Therefore Respondent itself is liable for his actions. INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, ETC., LOCAL 61 939 to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Local 7, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is -a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By causing Waghorne-Brown Company, a company engaged in commerce, to discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or condition of employment of John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock, thereby encouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. 3. By such action as described above Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees of Waghorne-Brown Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended order omitted from publication.] International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 61 and Groveton Papers Com- pany. Case No. 1-CB-837. September 30, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On June 24, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. 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 was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent with our decision herein. As set forth in the Intermediate Report, the Respondent Union and a local of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers, each represent- ing a separate unit, bargained jointly with the Company for many years, and joint contracts were executed. The most recent contract 1 In view of our holding in this case , we find it unnecessary to pass on the Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's exclusion of evidence which it sought to adduce. 144 NLRB No. 88.