Plumbers Local 519 (Sam Bloom Plumbing)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

810
306 NLRB No. 161
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 In a recent decision, Plumbers Local 38 (Mechanical Contractors
Assn.), 306 NLRB No. 97 (Feb. 28, 1992), involving, among other
things, certain hiring hall rule changes which were unlawful only in-
sofar as the union failed to give adequate notice to hiring hall reg-
istrants, the Board differentiated between, on the one hand, a rule
change as to which notice of the change would make it possible for
registrants to take steps to protect themselves from adverse con-
sequences of the change and, on the other, in which this would not
be possible because avoiding consequences of the changes was sole-
ly in the hands of individuals or entities other than the registrants.
Id., slip op. at 4–6. As to the former category of change, the Board,
citing Plumbers Local 230, 293 NLRB 315 (1989), noted that it was
appropriate to find violations regarding implementation, as well as
failure to give notice. Id. at 316. As to the latter category, the Board
found only a notice violation and limited the remedy to an order to
cease and desist from failing to give notice of hiring hall rule
changes. Id. at 316.
In adopting the conclusion that the Respondent in the present case
violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) not only by its failure to give ade-
quate notice of the new rule governing ‘‘strikes’’ of names on the
out-of-work list but also by its implementation of that rule, we are
acting consistently with Mechanical Contractors. A hiring hall user
who knew of the rule change regarding strikes would be aware, for
example, that if he had incurred two contractor rejections since com-
ing to the top of the list, he would then lose his place on the referral
list simply by one instance of failure to be present in the hiring hall
when his name was called or refusal to accept a job with a pay rate
of $15 per hour or more. Thus, lack of notice alone could have real,
adverse consequences on the job opportunities of hiring hall users.
Plumbers Local Union No. 519 (Sam Bloom Plumb-
ing Inc.) and Aryeh-Robert Mandel. Case 12–
CB–3338
March 24, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On October 18, 1991, Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Linton issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent Union filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and record in
light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions1 and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Plumbers Local Union No.
519, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in the Order.
George S. Aude, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Joseph H. Kaplan, Esq. (Kaplan & Bloom), of Miami, Flor-
ida, for Plumbers Local 519.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. LINTON, Administrative Law Judge. The ques-
tion here is whether a December 12, 1989 modification in
the Union’s exclusive hiring hall procedure, and the imple-
mentation of that change, were unlawfully made because of
untimely and inadequate notice to the membership and to
users of the hiring hall. Although some members learned of
the change within a few days, and still others at a general
membership meeting over a month later, the Union did not
notify its members and all hiring hall users in advance of the
effective date of the change. Finding that a significant
change was made without advance notice to the Union’s
membership and other hiring hall users, I order Plumbers
Local 519 to rescind its change, make whole, with interest,
Charging Party Mandel and any other discriminatees (names
of any to be determined at the compliance stage), and to
maintain and operate the exclusive job referral system in a
nonarbitrary, noncapricious, and nondiscriminatory manner.
I presided at this hearing in Miami, Florida, on July 22
and 23, 1991, pursuant to the September 27, 1990 complaint
issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board through the Regional Director for Region 12 of
the Board. The complaint is based on a charge filed February
12, 1990, by Aryeh-Robert Mandel against Plumbers Local
Union No. 519 (Union, Local 519, or Respondent). The time
framed by the immediate events in this case are December
1989 to February 1990, and all dates refer to that period un-
less otherwise indicated.
In the complaint the General Counsel alleges that Local
519, as a consequence of the December 12, 1989 change in
its hiring hall procedure, has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act by causing and attempting to cause employers
to discriminate against Charging Party Mandel and other em-
ployee-users of the exclusive hiring hall and referral system.
By its answer Respondent Local 519 admits the exclusive
hiring hall allegation, but denies violating the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the General Counsel (counsel included a proposed
order) and Local 519, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Sam Bloom Plumbing Inc. is a Florida corporation with an
office and place of business in Miami, Florida. Bloom is en-
gaged as a plumbing contractor in the building and construc-
tion industry. During the past 12 months, Bloom purchased
and received at its Miami facility goods valued at $50,000
or more directly from points outside Florida. Respondent ad-
mits, and I find, that Bloom is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act. Respondent Local 519 also admits and I find that it is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Allegations
Complaint paragraph 7 reads:
811PLUMBERS LOCAL 519 (SAM BLOOM PLUMBING)
1 References to the two-volume transcript of testimony are by vol-
ume and page. Exhibits are designated G.C. Exh. for the General
Counsel’s. Respondent Local 519 offered no exhibits.
On or about December 12, 1989, Respondent
changed the operating procedures and rules of its exclu-
sive hiring hall and referral system in a discriminatory
or arbitrary manner by implementing a new rule, which
provides that if an employee-user of the hiring hall and
referral system is rejected by an employer, such rejec-
tion would count as a mark towards rotation of the em-
ployee to the bottom of the referral list, and by failing
to timely and fully inform all employee-users of said
hiring hall and referral system of such significant
change.
Although the Union denies complaint paragraph 7, as we
see in a moment the Union did change its procedure by add-
ing employer rejection as a new source for a mark or strike
that, after three strikes, rotates an employee’s name to the
bottom of the out-of-work list (OWL). The next allegation,
paragraph 8, reads:
Since or or about December 12, 1989, Respondent, as
a consequence of its acts and conduct described above
in paragraph 7, has caused and attempted to cause em-
ployers to discriminate against the Charging Party and
other employee-users of its hiring hall and referral sys-
tem by discriminatorily failing and refusing to refer
them to employers pursuant to the operation of its ex-
clusive hiring hall and referral system.
Complaint paragraph 7 is not alleged as a violation of the
Act. Complaint paragraph 9 alleges that Local 519 violated
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by the conduct described in para-
graphs ‘‘8 and 9.’’ A pleading error is apparent, for para-
graph 9 would not refer to paragraph 9. Presumably the in-
tention was to refer to the two preceding paragraphs, 7 and
8. In short, by an apparent pleading error, paragraph 7 is not
picked up in the paragraph making the conclusory allegation
of which conduct constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(2).
Paragraph 10, also omitting reference to paragraph 7, alleges
that Local 519 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the
conduct described in paragraphs ‘‘8 and 9.’’ In other words,
the change alleged in paragraph 7 is not alleged as a viola-
tion of the Act. What is alleged as a violation of the Act is
the causing of employers to discriminate against Mandel and
other hiring hall users by discriminatorily failing and refus-
ing to refer them ‘‘pursuant to the operation of its exclusive
hiring hall and referral system.’’
Despite the pleading error, it is clear that complaint para-
graph 7 was litigated. At the hearing the General Counsel
stated that the Government was proceeding on the basis the
only matter to be litigated was the change in the hiring hall
procedure, and that no evidence would be offered on jobs
lost because that would be a compliance matter flowing from
a finding that the change was unlawful. A different aspect
of this position is that the Government is not attacking the
Union’s motive or reasons for its procedural change, but only
the fact that the change, under Board law, was improperly
made. Discriminatory impact, argues the General Counsel,
occurs when a mark or strike is added under the new proce-
dure, for the additional strike can result in the employee’s
being rotated to the bottom of the OWL. Whether the ad-
versely impacted employee suffered any monetary loss—by
not being referred to jobs—is a compliance matter (2:126–
134).1
Local 519 attempted to introduce evidence to show that
even if there were a presumption of adverse impact from the
change, in fact Charging Party Mandel suffered no adverse
impact because employers will not hire Mandel because they
believe he is an incompetent plumber. I sustained the Gen-
eral Counsel’s objection that, on the basis the Government
was proceeding, evidence on that point is a compliance mat-
ter. (2:130–135.)
Charging Party Mandel, a member of Local 519 since
1972, has been a licensed journeyman plumber since 1975.
He has been a recording secretary for the Union (1981–
1982), and at about the same time he was on the Union’s
bylaws committee. (1:24–26.) As for a reputation of incom-
petence, Mandel explains that it arises from the fact he vig-
orously defends his rights. In doing this in his early years
he acquired a reputation of being a ‘‘radical sonovabitch and
a lousy journeyman.’’ Mandel denies that he is incompetent,
and asserts that certain evidence about that from Sam Bloom
Plumbing actually pertains to a personality clash he had with
a general foreman on a job. (1:35, 41–43, 60–67.) I do not
resolve this issue of Mandel’s employability and the Union’s
justification, if any, for the December 12 modification, for
those topics were expressly excluded from litigation. (2:126–
131.)
B. The Union’s Exclusive Hiring Hall
The pleadings establish that at all times material Local 519
and certain employers in the Miami, Florida area, including
Sam Bloom Plumbing, have maintained an agreement desig-
nating the Union as ‘‘the sole and exclusive source of refer-
rals of employees.’’ Under the terms (art. V, sec. 2) of the
written collective bargaining agreement (CBA, or contract;
G.C. Exh. 3 at 3), effective August 16, 1988, through August
15, 1990, the Union is to refer ‘‘qualified, competent and ex-
perienced plumbers’’ to signatory employers. (1:18–21.) Sec-
tion 3 of the CBA requires the Union to maintain a hiring
hall for the selection and dispatching of ‘‘qualified, com-
petent and experienced plumbers.’’ (2:140.) The Union’s by-
laws (G.C. Exh. 2 at 32, art. VI sec. 1.B) provide that all
terms of the CBA concerning the hiring hall ‘‘are incor-
porated in these rules by reference.’’ (1:141.)
At the relevant time (December 1989 to February 1990)
the Union had some 500 active members classified as master
plumbers, journeymen, apprentices, and helpers. (2:152.)
Three OWLs are used, one for journeymen and one each for
apprentices and preapprentices. (1:27; 2:152.) During this pe-
riod about 100 employees, mostly journeymen, were using
the OWLs. (1:29; 2:172–173.) In these months approximately
50 employers were signatory to the CBA, but only about 6
were calling the hiring hall for employees. (2:152, 201–202.)
John Lindstrom, the Union’s business manager, testified
that the numbers are different as of July 1991 (when he testi-
fied) with about 150 plumbers on the OWLs, active members
down to some 325, and fewer than 200 members working in
the Miami area compared to 10 years earlier when the Union
had 900 members working there. Even Howard Armel, a wit-
812 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ness here and the business agent who ran the Union’s hiring
hall (2:136), was laid off July 1, 1991, until the Union has
200 members working for 3 months or more. The problems,
Lindstrom testified, began in the early 1970s when the Union
began losing its share of the market. Economic conditions
have contributed to the problems because, while the country
has been in a recession, the construction industry has been
in a depression. The Union now has more difficulty finding
jobs for users of the hiring hall. Quality and competence of
the plumbers are more important now than in past years.
When work was plentiful quality was less critical. But now,
work is scarce, and employers demand competence and qual-
ity. (2:193–197.)
The hiring hall’s written rotation rule, a bit ambiguous, ap-
pears as subparagraph L (G.C. Exh. 2 at 34, art. VI sec.1)
as follows (1:28; 2:139, 144, 191):
If an employee is not present when his name is called,
or refuses a $15.00 per hour or more job for (3) con-
secutive times, he will rotate to the bottom of the list.
Despite the literal language of subparagraph L, the wit-
nesses agree that any absence or any $15 refusing will gen-
erate one mark. Moreover, the marks apparently accumulate
indefinitely until three are reached, and do not have to be
consecutive. That is, marks can be generated between job
stints. These deficiencies (not present; refusing) are recorded
on the OWL in the form of a mark by the person’s name.
The mark is commonly referred to as a ‘‘strike.’’ The wit-
nesses describe subparagraph L as the three-strike rule.
Under that rule a registrant on the OWL is not rotated to the
bottom of the OWL until his name accumulates three strikes.
(1:28, 57; 2:145.) Howard Armel, the Union’s business agent
until his July 1, 1991 layoff, testified that the Union is com-
fortable with the three-strike rule. (2:144.)
There is some confusion in the record about the referral
procedure before December 12, 1989, concerning when an
employer stated that he did not want the specific plumber
who had reached the top of his OWL. Charging Party Man-
del suggests that the Union simply bypassed the employee
and went to the next name. (1:72.) Armel clearly states that
there was no bypassing, that the contractor had to take the
top person or no one because the Union had no procedure
authorizing the top name to be bypassed. (2:138, 158, 162–
163.) Regardless of the historical truth on that point, all
agree that the plumber did not lose his place at the top of
the OWL if he was rejected by an employer. Indeed, as we
are about to see, before December 12 a rejection did not
even result in a strike being placed by the plumber’s name.
C. The Change in Hiring Hall Procedure
It is undisputed that as of December 12, 1989, Charging
Party Mandel had reached the top of the OWL for journey-
men. Armel testified that as of December 12 the Union had
one letter from an employer, and calls from other employers,
asserting that Mandel is not eligible for rehire with their
firms. This dissatisfaction with Mandel by employers resulted
in stagnation (or a perception of such) of the OWL, Armel
testified. (2:138, 163.) A December 5, 1989 letter (G.C. Exh.
5a) is in evidence from Jerome Nagelbush, Inc., by Vice
President Richard A. Smith, a plumbing contractor, asserting
that Mandel, rejected on December 4, is not eligible for re-
hire at the firm. (1:90, 94.) No reasons or specifics are given
for the rejection or branding as not eligible for rehire.
The evening of December 12 Armel went before the
Union’s executive board and explained that Mandel’s pres-
ence at the top of the OWL would stagnate the list because
employers would not hire him. Calling attention to the
Union’s obligation under the CBA to send qualified and
competent mechanics, Armel proposed that the executive
board adopt a procedure enabling the business agent to im-
plement the CBA’s requirement. (1:137–138, 163.) Union
member Lorenzo Mixon recalls that it was Business Manager
Lindstrom who proposed the procedural change of adding a
strike by a name if an employer rejected the plumber being
referred. Mixon asserts that Lindstrom stated he was tired of
Mandel’s stagnating the list. (1:77–79, 85–88.) I need not re-
solve that discrepancy because it is undisputed that the
Union’s executive board adopted the suggestion, whoever
made it. There also is no dispute that the Union gave no ad-
vance notice to its membership, and to all hiring hall users,
that the proposed change would be presented to the executive
board the evening of December 12. Moreover, rather than de-
laying the effective date until after the next general member-
ship meeting, and giving interim notice, the Union imple-
mented the new change the very next morning, December 13.
As Armel describes, beginning the morning of December
13, 1989, a third cause for strikes was added to the Union’s
procedure—employer letters that a plumber is not eligible for
rehire. [Apparently the employer need not state that the rea-
son is dissatisfaction with job performance. Instead, the new
rule puts a plumber at risk over personality conflicts, politics,
race, sex, religion, or any number of invidious reasons.] Be-
fore December 12 such a rejection would not result in a
mark. After December 12 an employer’s rejection would re-
sult in a strike placed by the employee’s name. The rule and
practice of three strikes causing rotation of the person’s name
to the bottom of the OWL was not modified. (2:144, 155–
158, 162–163.)
Contending that this change is not a change in the Union’s
bylaws, Armel concedes that there is a difference, a change,
or a new procedure. (2:160, 164, 166.) This new procedure
is not in writing. (2:166.) It is not described in the minutes
of the executive board’s December 12 meeting (2:171), but
is briefly described in the minutes of the January 9, 1990 ex-
ecutive board meeting. (G.C. Exh. 4 at 2.) The December 12
and January 9 minutes were read at the regular January
membership meeting (fourth Thursday, being January 25;
2:219) and, Lindstrom testified, discussed. (2:176–177, 183–
185, 186–188, 198.) Lindstrom concedes that the additional
strike procedure was not itself put to a vote at the January
25 general membership meeting. (2:199.) Attendance at gen-
eral membership meetings ranges from a low of about 60 to
a high of about 100, with the usual number being around 75.
(2:178, 221.)
Armel testified that as of December 12 Mandel had only
one strike by his name on the OWL and did not receive the
third until December 26. (2:146–149.) The second strike ap-
parently came the morning of December 13 when, Armel tes-
tified, he bypassed Mandel (under the new procedure) be-
cause the employer calling was one who had declared Man-
del ineligible for rehire. (2:145–146.)
There is some dispute as to when Armel told Mandel, and
others within hearing, of the new source of strikes, and
813PLUMBERS LOCAL 519 (SAM BLOOM PLUMBING)
whether Mandel was rotated to the bottom of the list on De-
cember 13 or December 26. I need not resolve the matter be-
yond finding that it was no later than December 26, the date
Armel gives (2:149), for it is undisputed that the Union did
not give any advance notice of the effective date, much less
follow the resolution, notice, and voting procedure of its by-
laws for amending the hiring hall rules. Because the Union
was not trying to amend the bylaws, union officials testified,
the Union did not follow the procedure of resolution, notice,
and voting required before bylaws may be amended. (2:143,
159, 164, 191, 225–226.)
Business Manager Lindstrom testified that in about early
March 1990 the Union, as a small local union desirous of
limiting any liability exposure it might have under Mandel’s
recently filed unfair labor practice charge, informally
dropped the employer-letter source of strikes and returned to
the procedure prevailing before the December 12 change.
(2:203.) This reversion, informally made by Lindstrom, was
not made officially until several months later at the executive
board meeting of October 1990. The March 1990 reversion
was noted in the minutes of the October executive board
meeting and those minutes, Lindstrom testified, were read
later that month at the general membership meeting. (2:217–
221.) During March–October 1990 members apparently were
not told of the reversion, but, Lindstrom testified, marks
were not placed by the names of Mandel or others when an
employer rejected them. (2:217–218.)
D. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Applicable law
The Board has held that any departure from established
exclusive hiring hall procedures which results in a denial of
employment to an applicant falls within that class of dis-
crimination which inherently encourages union membership,
breaches the duty of fair representation owed to all hiring
hall users, and violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), unless the
union demonstrates that its interference with employment
was pursuant to a valid union-security clause or was nec-
essary to the effective performance of its representative func-
tion. Operating Engineers Local 406 (Ford, Bacon & Davis
Construction), 262 NLRB 50, 51 (1982), enfd. 701 F.2d 504
(5th Cir. 1983).
In Operating Engineers the Board also held that the failure
to give timely notice of a significant change in referral pro-
cedures was arbitrary and in breach of the union’s duty to
represent job applicants fairly by keeping them informed
about matters critical to their employment status. Accord-
ingly, the Board found that the respondent union further vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by changing the 5-day referral rule
without giving timely notice to all job applicants. Id.
2. Discussion
Agreeing with the General Counsel, I find that Plumbers
Local 519 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by
(1) significantly modifying its hiring hall procedure without
giving timely and adequate notice to all job applicants of the
effective date of the change, and by (2) rotating Charging
Party Mandel, and possibly others, to the bottom of the OWL
as a consequence of applying the new procedure to Mandel
and any others.
The Union argues that it was entitled to implement a pro-
cedure to comply with its obligations under the CBA, and
that this was ‘‘necessary to its effective performance of its
representative function.’’ First, the Union’s obligations here
are determined by the statute. Second, the Union’s December
12 action was not legally ‘‘necessary to its effective perform-
ance’’ because there was no unforeseen emergency. The po-
tential problems presented by Mandel’s use of the hiring hall
had been known by the Union for months, perhaps years.
Third, there is no allegation nor case asserting that the Union
had to amend its bylaws to satisfy its obligation under the
statute. Amending the bylaws may be one solution, but it is
not the only method of providing notice to all users of the
hiring hall.
The Union also argues that it gave notice to perhaps a
dozen users in mid to late December and to as many as 100
at the January 25 general membership meeting. Of course, all
such persons learned after the effective date of the change,
not before. Aside from that fatal defect, and assuming the
highest total for the Union, the number of 112 or so falls far
short of the 500 active members Local 512 then had. Any
of the 500 could be laid off and then have a need to use the
hiring hall. And those numbers do not count the users who
are not union members.
Citing Carpenters Local 720 (UMC of Louisiana) v.
NLRB, 798 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1986), Respondent Local 519
argues (Br. at 11–12) that a mere lack of notice does not
constitute a violation here because the General Counsel
failed to show that the rule resulted in a denial of employ-
ment to Mandel or any other hiring hall user. Carpenters is
inapposite because that case turned on internal union dis-
cipline and the proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Our
case is strictly employment opportunities; it has nothing to
do with internal union membership rules or discipline.
Accordingly, I find that Plumbers Local 519 violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on December 12, 1989, by signifi-
cantly changing its hiring hall procedures without giving
timely and adequate notice to all employee-users of the hir-
ing hall and referral system. Plumbers Local 230, 293 NLRB
315 (1989); Operating Engineers Local 406, supra. I also
find that Respondent Local 519 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act about December 26, 1989, when, pursuant
to the December 12 change, it rotated Aryeh-Robert Mandel
to the bottom of the journeyman OWL because such rotation
would adversely impact the employment opportunities of
Mandel and others. Plumbers Local 230; Carpenters Local
316 (Bay Counties Contractors), 291 NLRB 504 (1988); Op-
erating Engineers Local 406. Whether Mandel or others ac-
tually lost work as a result of such rotation is a matter to
be determined at the compliance stage. Operating Engineers
Local 406, id. at fn. 5.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent Plumbers Local Union 519 has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
To the extent Respondent has not done so, it must rescind
its December 12, 1989 rotation change in its hiring hall pro-
cedure. Notwithstanding notice to some hiring hall users, Re-
814 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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 purposes.
3 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
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.’’
spondent Local 519 must adequately notify all those who use
its hiring hall that the rule has been rescinded. Respondent
must make whole, with interest, Aryeh-Robert Mandel, and
any other hiring hall user who, as determined at the compli-
ance stage, suffered a loss of work as a result of the Union’s
rotating him to the bottom of the OWL after December 12,
1989. The make-whole remedy shall be for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful
rotation, computed on a quarterly basis from date of rotation
to date of proper referral or referrals, less any net interim
earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Plumbers Local Union No. 519, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to timely and adequately notify job applicants
of significant changes in hiring hall rules before the effective
date of such changes.
(b) Enforcing the December 12, 1989 change in hiring hall
procedure by which a mark, or ‘‘strike,’’ is placed by the
name of the hiring hall registrant if an employer submits a
letter stating that such registrant/job applicant is ineligible for
rehire, with such mark counting toward rotation to the bot-
tom of the out-of-work list (OWL) under the Union’s three-
strike rule.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Restore Aryeh-Robert Mandel, plus any others simi-
larly situated, to his proper place on the OWL, such place
to be determined as if the December 12, 1989 change had
not been made and implemented; make whole Aryeh-Robert
Mandel, and any other discriminatees, for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the decision; and remove from its records any ref-
erence to the lower placements on the OWL.
(b) To the extent the Union has not done so, rescind the
December 12, 1989 modification of the mark system by
which change a mark or strike would be acquired if an em-
ployer submitted a letter stating that a named job applicant
is no longer eligible for rehire.
(c) Maintain and operate the exclusive job referral system
in a nonarbitrary, noncapricious, and nondiscriminatory man-
ner.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all hiring hall
records, including the journeyman, apprentice, and
preapprentice OWLs, dispatch lists, referral cards, payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Post at its Miami, Florida hiring hall copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members and
other hiring hall users are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail to timely and adequately notify you and
all job applicants of changes in our hiring hall rules or proce-
dures before the effective date of such changes.
WE WILL NOT enforce the December 12, 1989 change in
hiring hall procedure by which a mark or ‘‘strike’’ is placed
by the name of the hiring hall registrant/job applicant on the
out-of-work list (OWL) if an employer submits a letter stat-
ing that such job applicant is ineligible for rehire, with such
mark counting toward rotation to the bottom of the OWL
under our three-strike rule.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or co-
erce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL restore Aryeh-Robert Mandel, plus any others
similarly situated, to his proper place on the OWL, such
place to be determined as if the December 12, 1989 change
had not been made and implemented.
WE WILL make whole, with interest, Aryeh-Robert Man-
del, and any other discriminatees, for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of our rotating him to
the bottom of the OWL in December 1989 pursuant to the
December 12, 1989 change in hiring hall procedure, and WE
WILL remove from our records any reference to that unlawful
rotation.
WE WILL, to the extent we have not done so, rescind the
December 12, 1989 modification of the mark system by
which change a mark or strike would be acquired if an em-
815PLUMBERS LOCAL 519 (SAM BLOOM PLUMBING)
ployer submitted a letter stating that a named job applicant
is no longer eligible for rehire.
WE WILL maintain and operate the exclusive job referral
system in a nonarbitrary, noncapricious, and nondiscrim-
inatory manner.
PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 519