Local No. 78

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 7, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 733 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

LOCAL NO. 78 Local No. 78, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Murray Walter, Inc.) and Anthony Martin . Case 3-CB-2571 April 7, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On January 13, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as herein modified. We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Anthony Martin should receive backpay beginning with the date the first rank-and- file carpenter began work at the Murray Walter job- site . There is evidence that at least one rank-and-file carpenter began work before Martin received an of- fer of employment from Murray Walter and sought referral from Respondent Union. We find that it is more appropriate to date backpay from the date Martin first sought referral from the Union after re- ceiving an offer of employment from Murray Walter, and we shall modify the Order accordingly.' We also disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's issuance of a narrow cease-and-desist order. A "broad" order is appropriate in situations such as this where Respondent's unfair labor practice is seri- ous in nature and strikes at the very heart of the rights intended to be protected by the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). We shall modify the Order accordingly. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local No. 78 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- ers of America , AFL-CIO, Troy, New York, its offi- cers , agents , and representatives , shall take the action 733 set forth in the said recommended Order, with the following modifications: 1. Substitute the word "other" for the words "like or related" in paragraph l(b). 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Make whole Anthony Martin for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against him by paying him a sum of money equal to that he would have earned between the date he first sought referral from the Respondent follow- ing an offer of employment by Murray Walter and October 15, 1975, the date he began work for Murray Walter, less his net earnings during such period. Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest -thereon at 6 percent per annum calcu- lated according to the formula set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)." 3. Substitute the attached notice for the notice at- tached to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. The section of the Decision entitled "The Unfair Labor Practices" is hereby corrected to show that the Employer 's home office is in Johnson City, New York, and that Anthony Martin lives in Mechanicville, New York. 2 There is some ambiguity in the testimony as to when Anthony Martin first sought referral from the Union. Martin's testimony places this date sometime in the first week of June 1975. We shall leave it to the compliance stage of the proceeding to determine the exact date Martin first sought referral. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to approve Anthony Martin for work available under our exclusive referral procedure, or otherwise discriminate against him, or any other applicant for employ- ment, because of his lack of membership in Lo- cal No. 78. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Mur- ray Walter, Inc., to deny employment, or to otherwise discriminate against the above-named individual or any other referral applicant, be- cause he is not a member of Local No. 78. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 223 NLRB No. 104 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL make whole Anthony Martin for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him. LOCAL No. 78, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL- CIO DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in this proceeding was held in Albany, New York, on No- vember 5, 1975, on complaint of the General Counsel against Local No. 78, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Re- spondent . The complaint issued on September 10, 1975, on a charge filed on July 31, 1975, by Anthony Martin, an individual . The sole issue in the case is whether the Re- spondent violated Section 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by causing Murray Walter, Inc., a construction contractor, to deny employment to the Charging Party in violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respon- dent.I Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Murray Walter, Inc., a New York state corporation with its principal place of business in Johnson City, New York, is engaged as a general contractor in the building and con- struction business in various locations in the State of New York. In the course of its business during the past year it purchased and had delivered to its jobsites within the State of New York goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 was transferred to said jobsites from out -of-state sources. I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find that Local No. 78, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In the City of Albany and its environs there are five locals of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- 1 A posthearing motion by the General Counsel to correct certain typo- graphical errors in the record transcript , unopposed, is hereby granted. ers of America, AFL-CIO, identified as Local 117, and Locals 78, 99, 1576, and 1321. All are members of the Al- bany, Schenectady, Troy and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters, here called the District Council. In the same area there exists the Negotiating Committee of the Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc., a multiemployer association here called the Association. The District Coun- cil and the Association are parties to a collective-bargain- ing agreement effective from June 21, 1974 to May 31, 1976. The contract contains the following provisions: Section 2. The Party of the First Part agrees to employ Carpenters and apprentices and the Party of the Sec- ond Part agrees to furnish within forty-eight (48) hours, journeymen, carpenters, and apprentices of the trade. Section 2. A contractor doing a job in a geographical area other than his home office may bring any regular men at said job. (A regular man being any one em- ployed 30 days or more.) However, any new men em- ployed on the job shall come from the area local. Murray Walter, Inc., a construction contractor, is a member of the Association and is bound by the contract in question; its home office appears to be in the general area of Plattsburgh, New York. In the early part of 1975, Mur- ray Walter began construction of a sewage disposal plant in the City of Troy, within the geographic jurisdiction of Carpenter Local 78. Anthony Martin, a carpenter, lives in Troy, incorporated within Local 78's jurisdiction, but is a member of Carpenter Local 117, whose jurisdiction is the City of Albany. During the spring and summer of 1975 he sought employment with Walter, but was not hired until October 15. The complaint alleges that, upon his application for a job, Walter conditioned Martin's hire upon approval by Local 78. It also alleges that upon the carpenter's request to James Martin, business agent of Local 78, that Union re- fused to approve, or refer him to the job, and that by such conduct the Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the statute. The Respondent vacillated at the hearing as to what its real defense may be. But two affirmative contentions ap- pear clearly, and they are totally inconsistent. The Respon- dent says there was no hiring hall or exclusive referral sys- tem in effect between it and the Walter Company.2 On this basis the Respondent claims it had a right to favor its own members over outsiders, for there was no obligation upon it to pay any attention at all to Martin's requests. Alterna- tively, Local 78 argues that, even if the Charging Party was offered a job by Walter and came to Local 78 for approval pursuant to contract, there were others ahead of him on the hiring hall list, and he surely had to wait his turn. This position is explicated precisely by counsel for the Respon- dent towards the end of the hearing: "if there was an exclu- sive bargaining . . . if there was . . . He [Anthony Martin] like any other man that walks in, if he was a member-if he 2 As stated on the record by Respondent's counsel : "There isn't, or there never was , an exclusive hiring hall in operation between Respondent and Employer." LOCAL NO. 78 was black , white , yellow-we have a list of people. Now why should he be entitled to jump seventy people that are out of work?" Exclusive Referral Contract The defense assertion that there was no contractually binding exclusive referral system is so utterly at variance with the evidence as to justify no extended discussion. The contract explicitly provides that Walter , operating in the jurisdiction of Local 78 , "shall" use only carpenters who "come from the area local ." On its face this language limits Walter's freedom to hire strictly to employees out of the hall of Local 78. The word "local" in the contract means Local 78 in this instance and nothing else. And that the parties so read the document , and so implemented it, is also shown by the oral testimony of the witnesses as to what they in fact did. Against all this , the conclusionary assertions by Clarence Willette, the general carpenter fore- man on the Walter's job , by the agents of Local 78, and by Respondent 's counsel , that whatever practice the parties pursued was dicatated by no more than their personal pre- dilection of the moment is meaningless and unconvincing. I find there was in effect at the time of the critical events an exclusive referral contract between Walter and Local 78. The argument in the Respondent 's brief that the phrase .,area local ," because it does not have the letter "1" capital- ized means only a geographical location bearing no coher- ent relationship to that identifiable and precise segment of the union party to the contract whose jurisdiction is exactly coterminous with that particular "area," cavalierly ig- nores both plain English and the common parlance of col- lective-bargaining relations . If there were any doubt as to the true meaning of the words-and there is none-it is surely dispelled by the fact that by the time the Walter project was fully staffed with carpenters there were no less than about 70 of them, all but three or four having come directly from the hiring hall of the Respondent , another name for "area local." And the three or four who were taken from elsewhere were all foremen, whom Business Agent Martin referred to as "The company men, which is their foremen...." The Respondent also called Wesley Ripple , the superin- tendent over the entire Walter construction project , in sup- port of two contentions-one, that there was no contract compulsion upon him to hire carpenters only through Lo- cal 78 , and two , that Willette , the general carpenter fore- man, who told Anthony Martin he would put him to work provided he could obtain permission from Local 78, had no authorization to offer the man a job . Ripple's testimony does not help to prove either point . Shown the effective contract , he said it is his company 's "practice" under the agreement to "hire the carpenters through the union." Asked , then, "could" he, if he wished , hire carpenters with- out clearance from Local 78 , he answered "Yes." Ripple is hardly the person whose opinion decides this case. The only reason why there is no finding of a violation of Sec- tion 8 (a)(3) of the Act against his company is because no such charge was filed. Ripple was no more convincing as to Willette's supervi- 735 sory status . As general foreman over the entire carpenter operation , Willette concededly supervises the foremen who in turn are in charge of the rank-and-file men ; he coordi- nates all the work ; he checks every day to ascertain that the work of the crews is correctly done , and if he is not satisfied orders the foremen to see that it is done right; every morning he discusses the progress of all the work with Ripple , the only man over him on the project; and when there are problems under the contract, such as juris- dictional questions , he speaks on behalf of management. In the sense that Willette must clear hiring through the Union 's hall, his power to hire may be limited , but there can be no question about his authority to responsibly di- rect the work . He is a supervisor in fact , and the evidence shows he offered employment to the Charging Party , albeit conditionally. Conditional Offer of Employment by Walter; Refusal by Respondent Martin testified that he visited the Walter jobsite a great many times , starting in April and May and into June and July. He first spoke to the superintendent, who told him he must see the carpenter foreman for work when it became available . Walter did not start putting carpenters on in any appreciable number until sometime in June and the begin- ning of July. Martin continued to testify that he spoke to Willette , the carpenter foreman, whom Walter had brought to Troy from its earlier construction job in Plattsburgh. According to Martin , Willette told him "that the steward had told him, that I had to go through the hall in order to get a job . And I told Mr . Willette , I says, `You put me to work, and I 'll call the hall and tell them I'm working."' At this point, still according to Martin, Willette said : "It's best if you go down and get Martin 's okay." Martin kept after Willette again and again. And again , still according to Martin 's testimony , the foreman said , "I have to go through the hall and get okayed by Martin in order to get a job." Martin clearly testified that, as early as June, Wil- lette told him "I'll put you to work," but that "a steward had told him that I gotta go through the hall." Between visits to Willette , Martin went to the Local 78 hall more than once , and asked Business Agent Martin for approval to go to work . He testified he told the business agent the first time : "`Look, Mr. Willette is going to put me on and give me a job , if you'll okay it. ' And he then turned around and said , `I can 't okay it. I've got too many of my own men out of work ."' Again , on another visit to the hall: "I asked him , if he would put me to work on that Mechan- icville job . He said , `1 can't-I've still got many men of my own out of work."' I credit Anthony Martin's testimony completely. Three witnesses testified with the object of defeating the com- plaint-one, Willette , called by the General Counsel, and two-Business Agent Martin and Anthony Caropreso, em- ployed by the association party to the contract , called by the defense . If only because all three of these admitted that the Walter construction project was covered by the terms of the contract , their testimony carries a fatal weakness and cannot be believed . There are other reasons , for in a large sense both Willette and Business Agent Martin ad- 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mitted much of the applicant 's testimony. Wilette recalled Martin asking for a job . From his testi- mony : "the thing that I told him, was that I thought he'd have to clear it through the union , because that was my- the way I always did it, in my thirty years . " "I think I said ... that I thought he could get on the job but I thought he should check through the union first, because that has been my experience." Did he tell the applicant there was a job for him? "I never told him we had one. We possibly proba- bly could put him on . That's what I said ." Asked had Jo- seph Boint, the Local 78 steward on the job, told him the only way Walter could put carpenters on the job was "to get them cleared through the union hall?" Willette an- swered : "The way he told him was that he'd like to get his men to work that are out of work , and it should go through the Union hall." Willette is 30 years a member of the Carpenters' Union, in August 1975 in charge of 69 carpenter members of this one local, discussing grievances on the job with Business Agent Martin of Local 78 , personally covered by the con- tract which gives him 75 cents per hour above base rate because of his foreman status , yet he repeated several times from the witness stand he never saw the applicable con- tract, only noticed it on the superintendent's table because of the jacket color . "Q. Mr. Willette , as general foreman, are you covered by this contract ? A. I am-I don't know about this either . Because I don't even know what it is." Whatever it was Willette was attempting to prove at this hearing, he was absolutely a discredited witness. Business Agent Martin started his testimony with a straight evasion , if not really a lie. "Q. [By Company coun- sel] I said, did you have any understanding or arrangement with Murray Walter as to their hiring of carpenters for their Saratoga project? A. Not actually ." The witness then added that at a "pre job conference" he had with Walter's management, he discussed the hiring of carpenters because Walter was "coming in to the area," and that as a result of the talking "the understanding would be that they would be hiring union people ." Martin has for 12 years been a paid representative of Local 78, he acts for that Union in processing grievances with General Foreman Willette on this job, he is there to enforce the contract , yet would have this Board believe the hiring arrangement had nothing to do with the explicit exclusive limitations imposed by the contract itself! His continuing testimony about two visits Anthony Mar- tin made to the hall not only supports the carpenter 's testi- mony about being denied referral , but again makes a mockery of the business agent 's story that there was no referral system at all. Speaking of Anthony's first visit: "he [Anthony Martin] says, that, 'I think I can get on that job, if I can clear it with you.' At that time , I told him that I had about ninety people out of work . That are on my work list. They come in every week to sign that book, looking for work . And I couldn't justify sending him there at that time ."' As to the second visit : "He says, 'I'd still like to get on the job .' And I told him, at that time , that they hadn't hired that many people yet . . . And I says , 'I haven't real- ly sent that many people on that site, yet . . . I told him I still didn 't get rid of too many people off the list."' is that the business agent was indifferent as to which par- ticular local union any individual carpenter belonged to, all he was doing was fairly referring on a first-come first- serve basis. But the story clashes with that of Foreman Willette, who said Business Agent Martin came to the job- site a number of times, and "I did say that there had been some from other locals that had been there and that's when he told me that he'd like to have his men to work first because he had so many of them out of work." I find that Anthony Martin, as he testified, told the busi- ness agent that Walter was willing to hire him on condition that Local 78 approved, that he asked the business agent for approval, that James Martin refused to refer him, and that his reason for such denial was because Anthony Mar- tin was a member of a local other than Local 78. I find that by such conduct of James Martin the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act , as alleged in the complaint.3 No amount of talking by the parties in interest, sworn statements or not , can serve in the least to make disappear the written contract in effect and binding Walter and Local 78 to an exclusive hiring hall. Their bland assertions that nobody paid any attention to that contract clause, and only that contract clause, serves only to discredit the de- fense all the more . Caropreso, assistant manager of the Employer Association, as a defense witness said that, when members call him for advice on what the contract means, he tells them they are free to hire from the union hall or not, as they please. But he added that the members "nor- mally" call the union hall before looking elsewhere, and that Walter Company also does this. If Caropreso's pur- pose was to create the impression that the parties to the contract ignored the requirement that out-of-town contrac- tors "shall" hire from the "area local," he was mouthing pure fancy. As further purported evidence that Martin's nonmem- bership in Local 78 was not a factor in the business agent's decision not to approve his hire by Walter, the Respondent proved that a registration book was kept in the union hall, where out-of-work carpenters were listed as seeking em- ployment. Many names were put there each week, and the listed carpenters were shown to be members of Local 99, 1576, and 1321, as well as of Local 78. The business agent said that Walter kept calling for men and that he selected carpenters from this list to refer to the jobsite. He sent referrals of 69, beginning in June and into August. Antho- ny Martin's name never appeared on the list. It was then brought out, on cross-examination, that from early in the year-how long before then is not shown-James Martin "represented" all four of these locals, that he was the busi- ness agent of each one. In fact, on August 1, 1975, all four were consolidated into a single local-Local 78. Local 117, of which Anthony Martin is a member, has a different business agent . This means that in a real sense Local 78, 99, 1576, and 1321 were one, and that Anthony Martin was a true outsider. If, as the Respondent now claims, its busi- ness agent really did not care about the diverse local union affiliations of the various carpenters, all he had to do was 3 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, The implication said to flow from this kind of testimony Forgers and Helpers Local Lodge No. 169, AFL-CIO, 209 NLRB 140(1974). LOCAL NO. 78 put Anthony Martin' s name on the purported referral list; he did not, despite the repeated requests for referral. In fact, the business agent admitted he never even told the applying carpenter of the existence of any registration sys- tem. And the reason , again , was because this particular man was not a member of the Locals-really one-of which James Martin was business agent. Not that it would have done Anthony Martin any good even if the business agent had invited him to sign his regis- ter. The Union's brief cites cases involving the proper use of seniority lists under lawful hiring contracts, and it keeps repeating the totally unsupporting assertion that Business Agent Martin did keep such a list , and that the applying individual had to wait his turn. But the business agent said at the hearing that when he receives a call for a carpenter, "If the guy was just a regular carpenter, I might take a guy off the list and refer him to the job." Apparently Martin suits his fancy. Again from the transcript: "Q. Do you fol- low a seniority system in their referral out of this union hall? The witness: We don't have a seniority system... . In the construction industry, we have no system known as seniority." Martin was playing with words, for in the con- struction industry the first man laid off and placed on the hiring register has seniority referral rights over every man who is laid off later and signs the "register" later. These were direct answers from Martin; most of the rest of his testimony on this critical point was deliberate evasion. In the circumstances of this case, with a written exclusive hiring hall contract binding upon the parties, the Respondent's conduct in causing the Walter Company to deny employment to Anthony Martin was clearly unlaw- ful. Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express] v. N.L.R.B., 365 U.S. 667 (1961). In his brief the General Counsel argues an alterna- tive theory of illegality, that the evidence also proves the existence of an exclusive hiring practice apart from the ex- isting contract. He is correct, of course, but it would be as illogical to predicate the unfair labor practice finding on such a ground in this case as it was illogical of the Respondent's agents to deny the existence of the contract in the face of the documentary evidence. The exact date when the Walter Company would have hired Martin, had Local 78 approved, is not clear on the record. Martin was out at the jobsite again and again from April on. It is clear , however, that very early in June the foreman said he expected to put carpenters on soon, and it is equally clear that Martin went to the Respondent's busi- ness agent immediately, only to be rejected. And while the evidence shows the Local referred well over 60 men during the summer, again it does not establish exactly when it started doing so. I think, therefore, that Martin must be made whole from a day starting when the very first rank- and-file carpenter began work on the project. There is no question, in view of his constant and persistent applica- tions to Willette that absent the illegal conduct of Local 78 he would have been the first to be hired. He must therefore be made whole for what earnings he lost in consequence of the denial of employment from that day on. The fact that the Respondent in October did refer Mar- tin to the project, and that in those circumstances he was hired, in no way excuses the Respondent from culpability 737 for its illegal conduct, or from whatever financial responsi- bility now falls upon it in consequence. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in section III above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of the Murray Walter, Inc., set forth above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow thereof. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed in Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, it will be ordered that the Respondent cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirmative ac- tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Re- spondent unlawfully caused the denial of employment of Anthony Martin, and therefore must be ordered to make him whole for any loss of earnings incurred in conse- quence. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Murray Walter, Inc., is an employer within the mean- ing of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By attempting to cause and by causing Murray Wal- ter, Inc., to discriminate against Anthony Martin in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respondent has vio- lated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER4 Respondent, Local No. 78, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Troy, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Murray Walter, Inc., or any other employer, to discriminate against Anthony Martin, or any other employee, in violation of Section In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8(aX3) of the Act because of his lack of membership in the Union. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Make whole Anthony Martin for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practic- ed against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all rec- ords, reports , work lists , and other documents necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Notify Murray Walter, Inc., in writing, that there is no objection to the hiring or employment of Anthony Mar- tin. (d) Post at all places where notices to employees, appli- cants for referral, and members are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 3, after being duly signed by the Union's representa- tives, shall 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 members are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ- ing, within 20 days from date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 5In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."