Plasterers Local 232 (John G. Ruhlin Construction)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 795 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

PLASTERERS LOCAL 232 (JOHN G. RUHLIN CONSTRUCTION)
The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons'
International Association of the United States
and Canada, Local Union No. 232, AFL-CIO
(The John G. Ruhlin Construction Co.) and
Steve Cordle. Case 9-CB-5011
9 February 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 30 September 1982 Administrative Law
Judge Donald R. Holley issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, the Opera-
tive Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International
Association of the United States and Canada, Local
Union No. 232, AFL-CIO, Ashland, Kentucky, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
The judge found that the Respondent's referral records revealed that
some seven members requested by name were referred to the requesting
contractors during the period Extending from 16 April to 20 May 1981.
However, examination of these records reveals that only three members
were requested by name and referred to the requesting contractors
during that time. We hereby correct this error.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge filed by Steve Cordle, an individual
(herein called the Charging Party), the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board
(herein called the Board) issued a complaint on Septem-
ber 14, 1981, alleging, in substance, that The Operative
Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association
of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 232,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Respondent or Local 232),
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on or about May
268 NLRB No. 120
14, 1981,1 by failing and refusing to refer the Charging
Party to employment with the John G. Ruhlin Construc-
tion Co. (herein called Ruhlin), which had requested him
by name, for reasons other than his failure to pay period-
ic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the
Respondent.
The case was heard in Ashland, Kentucky, on June 29,
1982. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses while they testified, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Ruhlin, an Ohio corporation, with an office and place
of business in Akron, Ohio, is a general contractor in the
building and construction industry. During the 12-month
period preceding issuance of the complaint, it purchased
and received at a waste water treatment jobsite located
in Ashland, Kentucky, goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. It is admitted, and I find,
that Ruhlin is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.2
11L. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Facts
The Respondent is a relatively small union which has
50-60 members who are primarily engaged in cement fin-
ishing. Its jurisdiction covers some 4 counties in Ohio,
and some 21 counties in Kentucky. While it does not op-
erate an exclusive hiring hall, it is signatory to a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Tri-State Contractors
Association and Related Contractors Associations which
provides, inter alia:3
16. During the progress of any and all jobs, fifty
(50) percent of the Cement Masons or Operative
Plasterers employed by the employer, plus the odd
man, if any, shall be referred to the employer by the
local union office, or Local Union Business Repre-
sentative. The balance of the work force may or
may not be residents of the area.
All dates herein are 1981 unless otherwise indicated.
'The Respondent's answer admits, and I find, that Eric Risner, its
business agent, is, and has been at all times material, an agent of the Re-
spondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act. The record reflects
that George Clay is the Respondent's recording secretary and that he ac-
cepted orders for employees from contractors and referred members to
employment while Risner was in the hospital during the week of May 11,
1981. I find that Clay was an agent of the Respondent during the week
beginning May 11, 1981.
' See G.C. Exh. 2, p. 23.
795
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eric Risner, Local 232's business representative, indicat-
ed the Respondent has no hiring hall as such, but he re-
ceives phone calls from contractors requesting men at his
home and he attempts to fill such requests by recording
the names of members who have contacted him to report
they are out of work and referring those individuals to
work as the requests for help come in. Risner testified
that he inspects monthly reports submitted by contrac-
tors who are signatory to the above-described contract
when they forward trust fund moneys provided for in
the agreement to remain generally familiar with the num-
bers of hours each member has worked during the pre-
ceding 3 or 4 months to assist him in determining who
should be referred to employment as requests come in.
Utilizing this loose system, he attempts to equalize the
amount of work the members receive. Risner indicated
during his testimony that his task of attempting to equal-
ize the work performed by members is difficult as ap-
proximately 80 percent of the work performed by his
members is on 1- or 2-day jobs and, during the course of
a year, a member may work for as many as 25 contrac-
tors.
Although the above-described collective-bargaining
agreement permits signatory employers who are per-
forming work that falls within the craft jurisdiction of
Local 232 within the Respondent's territorial jurisdiction
to obtain half of their cement finishers from sources
other than the Respondent, the record reveals that the
Respondent's business representative, Eric Risner, prefers
that such contractors obtain all their cement finishers
through the Respondent. Thus, the record reveals that
one signatory employer, Ross Brothers Construction Co.,
performed work at two jobsites within the Respondent's
territorial jurisdiction during calendar years 1980 and
1981, and in both instances it informed Risner that it
would employ only certain named members of Local 232
on its jobs,4 and that while Risner testified that he en-
gaged in no reprisals against members who were called
to work directly by Ross Brothers or its foreman, Ozzie
Reeves Sr., he admitted he was unhappy with the
manner in which that company obtained its Local 232
workmen. In that regard, Reeves testified that on several
occasions in 1980 and 1981 he called Risner to request
that additional men be referred to Ross Brothers' jobs
and on each occasion Risner refused to send additional
men, indicating that, if Ross Brothers called some of
their men without going through the hall, they could get
all their men that way. 5 According to Reeves, he told
Risner in late 1980 that he had called Steve Cordle to a
Haverhill job being performed by Ross Brothers and
Risner informed him if they got their jobs that way they
could get them all from then on; that the Union would
not send them out. 6
4 See, for example, R. Exh. 1, a letter from Ross Brothers to Risner
dated June 1S, 1981, which indicates it would utilize, among others,
Rocky Cordle. Steve Cordle, Ozzie Reeves Jr., and Ozzie Reeves Sr.
a While Risner testified he did not refuse to refer men to Ross Broth-
ers, he admitted he told Reeves he should obtain any additional help
needed by calling members Ross Brothers had indicated it would use.
' Risner did not deny the remarks attributed to him by Reeves. On the
occasion under discussion, Steve Cordle called Risner to ask if he should
go to the Haverhill job. Risner told him it was up to him; that he was not
referring anyone to Ross Brothers.
At some unstated time, presumably in 1980, Ruhlin
commenced work on a waste water treatment plan in
Ashland, Kentucky. Ruhlin is signatory to the above-de-
scribed collective-bargaining agreement and has, accord-
ing to Risner, obtained all of its cement finishers through
Local 232. The Charging Party, Cordle, worked on Ruh-
lin's Ashland jobsite for 7-8 months in 1980, until he was
laid off in November of that year.
During the week of May 11, 1981, Risner was hospi-
talized and the Respondent's recording secretary, George
Clay, acted as business agent. Clay indicated that he
worked at the trade while he substituted for the regular
business representative, but he went to Risner's home
each evening and listened to tape recordings of phone
calls from contractors and thereafter sought to fill their
requests for employees by contacting members who were
out of work and directing them to report to the contrac-
tors who had requested help. Clay testified that before
Risner went to the hospital he gave him a list containing
the names of 8-12 members who were out of work, indi-
cating how long each had been unemployed. The names
of Steve Cordle and his brother, Rocky Cordle, ap-
peared on the list.7
On May 13, Clay was asked by Baker Construction
Company to refer five men to its Piketon, Ohio jobsite
the following day. To fill the request, Clay called
Donald Lansing and Joe McNeal, who lived in Ports-
mouth, Ohio. He then called Ozzie Reeves Sr., who
lived in Ashland, Kentucky, and asked if Reeves and
two additional Kentucky members would go to the job.
Reeves indicated that he, his son Ozzie Jr., and Steve
Cordle, who had been working with them, would go.
Reeves thereafter contacted Steve Cordle, Rocky
Cordle, and Estell Ellis in attempt to obtain a third Ken-
tucky man to fill Baker's request. All three individuals
indicated they would not go to the Baker job. Conse-
quently, at 11:30 p.m. on May 13, Reeves telephoned
Clay and informed him that Steve Cordle had refused re-
ferral to the Baker job.8 On May 14, the two Reeves,
Lansing, and McNeal reported to the Baker jobsite. Lan-
sing worked, but the Reeves and McNeal refused to
work because they felt there was too much work for
four cement finishers. 9
On May 14 or 15, Jim Shott, Ruhlin's superintendent
on the Ashland waste water treatment plant job, called
Risner's home, indicating that a man then employed by
Ruhlin was retiring and he would like to have Steve
Cordle referred to the job on Monday, May 18. As
Risner was to be out of the hospital then, Clay informed
I The list was not produced at the trial. Risner testified such notes are
routinely destroyed when they are no longer useful. Clay and Risner
failed to indicate the names of the persons on the list in question or the
length of time such persons had been out of work as of May 11. Clay
indicated he selected men for referral by taking men at random from the
list, rather than in some particular order.
' My findings concerning what was said during the two telephone con-
versations between Reeves and Clay are based on Clay's testimony.
Reeves claims he did not tell Clay during the first conversation that he
would attempt to cause Steve Cordle to go to the Baker job, and he did
not recall whether he called Clay to tell him Cordle would not accept
the referral. Clay was the most impressive witness, and I credit his testi-
mony fully.
9 See R. Exh. 2.
796
PLASTERERS LOCAL 232 (JOHN G. RUHLIN CONSTRUCTION)
Shott that the regular business representative would
handle the request. Thereafter, on Sunday, May 17,
Risner decided to refer Rocky Cordle rather than his
brother Steve to the Ruhlin job. Steve Cordle and his
father, also a member and past officer of Local 232, tele-
phoned Risner when they learned that Rocky rather than
Steve was being sent to the job in question. Risner in-
formed them he was sending Rocky rather than Steve
because Steve had refused a job and it was not his time
to go. Steve Cordle protested, indicated he had not re-
fused a job because he had not been called by the Union,
and he threatened to sue Risner and the Local for failing
to refer a man who had been requested by a contractor
by name.
Through the testimony of Ozzie Reeves Sr. and Glen
Cordle, the General Counsel sought to show that the Re-
spondent uniformly referred members requested by name
to the contractors making such requests. Thus, Reeves
testified that prior to May 1981 he had been a foreman
on a number of jobs and had requested that Risner refer
named individuals to such contractors and his requests
had never been refused. Cordle testified, without contra-
diction, that, at a Local 232 membership meeting held in
November or December 1980, a member asked Risner
why certain men got more work than others and that
Risner replied some members got more work because
contractors had requested them by name and the Local
had to honor such requests to avoid being sued.
During their testimony, both Clay and Risner denied
that contractors' requests for the referral of named mem-
bers are uniformly honored. They both indicated that the
Respondent attempts to equalize the number of hours
worked by members and claimed that when an out-of-
work member was requested by name, his standing
among others then out of work would be considered.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Respondent placed
certain documentary evidence in the record in attempt to
show it had not treated Steve Cordle discriminatorily.
Thus, it placed in the record as Respondent's Exhibits 2
and 3 notes made by Risner during the period extending
from April 16, 1981, to May 20, 1981, regarding referral
information. These documents, as I interpret them, show,
inter alia: that Charles Boldman and John Penwell were
requested by and were referred to a contractor at an A
plant on April 22; that Ronald Blevins was called back
to an A plant on April 22; that Bechtel Corp. requested
H. Strickland by name and he was referred to an A plant
pursuant to request on April 28; that Rocky Cordle and
Steve Cordle were called by David and Burton to work
at Kentucky Electric on the night shift on April 28; that
Bechtel requested that 13 men be sent to an A plant on
April 29 and that 13 named individuals were referred
and Bimmington and Jack Dermont would not go; that
on April 30 Sherman R. Smoot called Leon France back
to work; that on May 1, when Bechtel requested three
men, Havens refused to go to an A plant because it was
too far to drive; that on May 8 Leon France was called
by Sherman R. Smoot to an A plant; that on May 14
Ozzie Reeves Jr., Ozzie Reeves Sr., Steve Cordle, Joe
McNeal, and Lansing were referred to Baker Cement-
that Lansing worked but the remaining four showed up
on the job and would not work1 °; that on May 15 Hil-
terbrand, Hall, R. Cordle, and Glenn Shaggs were re-
ferred to Dimaco at Armco Steel and Hilterbrand and
Hall did not show up; that Ruhlin placed a call for one
cement mason at the Ashland sewer plant to take Jock
Frazer's place (he had had a heart attack) and Rocky
Cordle was referred on May 18; that on May 20 Ross
Brothers' superintendent called Ozzie Reeves Sr., Ozzie
Reeves Jr., and Steve Cordle to work with a notation
that "Ossie [sic] Reeves, Sr called me and told me that
Ross Brothers Superintendent had called him and Ossie
Reeves, Jr. & Steve Cordle to come to work for them at
Ashland Oil I subed from Prolon on 5-21-81. Also said
he wanted 1 more man. I told him that Ross Brothers
had never called the Hall for men, and that if he called
the (3) men he could also called the Fourth man, and I
told Ossie Sr. that they were not supposed to go on jobs
where contractors called the men and did not call the
Hall. Had not Had pre-job conference for this job"; and
that May 20 Alonzo Nelson called Dick Strickland to
work for Fergeson Construction Co. at an A plant.
After placing the above-described referral records in
the record, the Respondent was permitted, over the Gen-
eral Counsel's objection, to place a composite exhibit in
the record which reveals the number of regular hours
worked by Local 232's 56 members at various times
during the period May 1, 1980, through May 31, 1982.11
While that exhibit will not be described in detailed fash-
ion here because many of the figures are of limited rel-
evance, I note the exhibit reveals that during the 12-
month period preceding May 1, 1981, Steve Cordle
worked 1038 regular hours and his brother, Rocky,
worked 785 regular hours. 12 It further reveals that,
during the first 4 months of 1981, Steve Cordle worked
134 hours (Jan.-58, Feb.-32, Mar.-20, and Apr.-24)
while Rocky Cordle worked 258+ 1/2 hours(Jan. 41-1/2,
Feb.-65, Mar.-56, and Apr.-96.)
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The sole issue in this case is whether the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(IXA) of the Act by refusing to
refer Steve Cordle to employment at Ruhlin after he had
been requested by name.
Section 8(b)(IXA) provides, in pertinent part, that:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor or-
ganization or its agents-
(I) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7
In turn, Section 7 of the Act provides, in pertinent part:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations . . . and
t0 Risner testified that before he referred Rocky Cordle to the Ruhlin
job on Sunday, May 17, he learned from men on the job that Steve
Cordle had not appeared at the job.
" See R. Exh. 4.
" The Respondent's records do not reveal the overtime hours worked
by members as trust fund moneys are only remitted by contractors for
regular hours worked.
797
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[they] shall also have the right to refrain from all
such activities ....
In the instant case, the General Counsel contends, in
effect, that the Respondent punished the Charging Party
on May 17 by refusing to refer him to employment with
Ruhlin, which had requested him by name, because
Cordle had previously obtained most of his own work
and he had elected to accept a direct offer of work from
Ross Brothers, both being contrary to the business repre-
sentative's desire that all contractors obtain workmen
through the Respondent's hiring hall and that all mem-
bers accept work from only contractors who obtained
their Local 232 workmen by going through the Re-
spondent's hiring hall.1 3
During the presentation of his case, the General Coun-
sel adduced evidence to show: (1) That the Respondent
operates a nonexclusive hiring hall and contractors who
are signatory to its standard agreement are required to
obtain 50 percent of their cement masons through the
Respondent's hall; (2) that prior to mid-may 1981, Steve
Cordle obtained most of his own work; (3) that during
1980 and 1981, Ross Brothers, a signatory contractor, ob-
tained its own Local 232 workmen by calling members
directly rather than requesting them through the Re-
spondent; that the Respondent's business agent, Risner,
repeatedly refused to refer additional men to Ross Broth-
ers because they called their men directly; that Risner
stated on one occasion in later 1980 that he would not
refer Steve Cordle to employment because he elected to
accept work with Ross Brothers; that Risner informed
members at a membership meeting held in late 1980 that
some men had worked more than others because they
had been requested by name and the Union referred
them to avoid being sued; and that the Respondent re-
fused to refer Steve Cordle to employment at Ruhlin on
May 17 despite the fact that he had been requested by
name. I find that by eliciting the testimony described, the
General Counsel has established, prima facie, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The Respondent contends, in effect, that it lawfully re-
fused to refer Steve Cordle to employment at Ruhlin be-
cause such action was necessary to the effective perform-
ance of its function of representing its constituency. Spe-
cifically, it contends that Risner refused to refer the
Charging Party to employment at Ruhlin on May 17 be-
cause he had refused a referral to Baker on May 13 and,
in any event, he was not next in line for referral on May
17 because it follows a policy of attempting to equalize
the amount of work performed by members and such
policy dictated that Rocky Cordle, Steve's brother, be
referred to Ruhlin on May 17. For the reasons set forth
below, I find that the defenses interposed by the Re-
spondent are pretexts offered to mask an unlawful reason
for the refusal to refer Steve Cordle to the Ruhlin job.
1s Citing Operating Engineers Local 18 (William F. Murphy), 204
NLRB 681 (1973), the General Counsel claims I should conclude he
proved a prima facie violation of Sec. 8(bXIXA) by showing that Risner
refused to refer Cordle to Ruhlin after he had been requested by name
and the refusal wa not based on Cordle's failure to satisfy his financial
obligations to the Respondent. As this is an 8(bXIXA) rather than an
8(bX2) case, I find that the Local 18 case is inapplicable.
While the refusal to accept a referral defense has some
surface appeal, no evidence other than Risner's bald as-
sertion that this was a reason for his refusal to honor
Ruhlins's request that Steve Cordle be sent to the job on
May 18 was offered by the Respondent. Moreover, the
very records offered by the Respondent appear to belie
the claim. Thus, the Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 3
reveal that no less than nine members (excluding Steve
Cordle) either refused referrals to employment, accepted
referrals and failed to show up, or accepted referral and
failed to work during the period extending from April 29
to May 15. Conspicuously, the record fails to reveal that
any of those members suffered any adverse consequences
as a result of their actions.
In sum, the record reveals that members can refuse re-
ferral for valid reasons; that Steve Cordle was not asked
why he refused the May 13 referral; and that nine other
members were shown to have refused referrals or have
refused to work after accepting referral during the short
period extending from April 29 to May 13 and the
record fails to reveal that they were punished in any
way. In the circumstances described, I find that the Re-
spondent has failed to establish that it has a policy of
limiting a member's referral rights because that member
refused a referral or refused to work after accepting the
referral.
Simnilarly, Risner's claim that he referred Rocky
Cordle rather than Steve Cordle to the Ruhlin job be-
cause Rocky had worked less than Steve does not with-
stand scrutiny. As noted, supra, the so-called list left by
Risner with Clay during the week beginning May 11 was
not produced at the trial. Consequently, the record fails
to reveal which brother was ahead of the other on the
list. Moreover, as noted supra, Risner's testimony was to
the effect that he inspected fund reports received shortly
before the referral situations to determine who should be
sent out and the compilation he prepared for trial reveals
that, during the first 4 months of 1981, Rocky had
worked in excess of 100 more regular hours than Steve.
The above observations, considered with the testimony
of the General Counsel's witnesses which reveals that
members requested by contractors by name were uni-
formly referred to such contractors and the fact that the
Respondent's records reveal that some seven members
requested by name were referred to the requesting con-
tractors during the period extending from April 16 to
May 20, cause me to conclude that the Respondent had
failed to show that the Respondent's work equalization
policy required that Rocky Cordle rather than Steve
Cordle was entitled to refusal to the Ruhlin job on May
17.
In sum, I find, for the reasons indicated, that the Re-
spondent has offered insufficient evidence to rebut the
General Counsel's prima facie showing that the Re-
spondent's failure to refer Steve Cordle to the Ruhlin job
on May 17, 1981, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The John G. Ruhlin Construction Co. is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
798
PLASTERERS LOCAL 232 (JOHN G. RUHLIN CONSTRUCTION)
2. Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' Interna-
tional Association of the United States and Canada,
Local Union 232, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to refer Steve Cordle to employment at
John G. Ruhlin Construction Co. after he had been re-
quested by name, because he chose to accept employ-
ment with a contractor who obtained its workmen by
direct contact with employees rather than through the
Respondent's nonexclusive hiring hall, the Respondent
violated Section 8(aXl)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to
make Steve Cordle whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him with interest thereon computed in the
manner prescribed in F. W: Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651
(1977).14
On the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, I issue the following recom-
mended
ORDER 1'
The Respondent, Operative Plasterers' and Cement
Masons' International Association of the United States
and Canada, Local Union 232, AFL-CIO, Ashland, Ken-
tucky, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercing or restraining Steve Cordle or any other
employee utilizing Local 232's nonexclusive hiring hall
by refusing to refer employees to employment with con-
tractors who have requested them by name because they
have chosen to accept employment with contractors who
obtain their workmen by direct contact with employees
rather than through the Union's hiring hall.
(b) In any like or related manner coercing or restrain-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
4 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(a) Make whole Steve Cordle for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him with
interest in the manner described in the section of this De-
ceision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its business office, hiring hall, and meeting
place, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's official representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places in-
cluding all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 9 addi-
tional copies of the attached notice for posting by the
John G. Ruhlin Construction Co., if Ruhlin is willing.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
' If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain Steve Cordle or any
other employees utilizing Local 232's nonexclusive hiring
hall by refusing to refer employees to employment with
contractors who have requested them by name because
they have chosen to accept employment with contractors
who obtain their workmen by direct contact with em-
ployees rather than through the Union's hiring hall.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner coerce or
restrain employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Steve Cordle whole for any loss of
earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him with interest.
THE OPERATIVE PLASTERERS' AND
CEMENT MASONS' INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, LOCAL UNION 232, AFL-CIO
799