DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR REI \ITIONS BOARD
Polis Wallcovering Co., Economy Decorators Inc. of
New Jersey, Ponzio & Sons, Inc., S. W. Koo-
perman, Inc., Charles Shaid of New Jersey,
Claremont Painting and Decorating Co., Inc.
and Willard Painting and Sandblasting and
Edward W. Pygatt and Jennings V. Love
Local Union No. 277, International Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades and Edward W.
Pygatt and Jennings V. Love. Cases 4-CA-
11875 and 4-CB-4170
July 27, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On December 28, 1981, Administrative Law
Judge Joel A. Harmatz issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
Union and Charging Party Love filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Re-
spondent Union filed answering briefs in opposition
to Charging Party Love's exceptions and to the
General Counsel's cross-exceptions, and Respond-
ent Claremont filed a brief in opposition to the
General Counsel's cross-exceptions.
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, cross-ex-
ceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the
rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended
Order. 1
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 and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Local Union
No. 277, International Brotherhood of Painters and
Allied Trades, Atlantic City, New Jersey, its offi-
' We hereby deny Charging Party Love's motion to reopen the
record. The Charging Party seeks to present certain evidence pertaining
to his employment history prior to Respondent Local 277's failure to
refer him for employment. The Charging Party asserts that the foregoing
evidence was not presented at the hearing "through inadvertence" and
because counsel deemed it unnecessary to do so at the time of the hear-
ing. Accordingly, it is evident that the Charging Party alleges neither ex-
traordinary circumstances nor any other matter satisfying the require-
ments of Sec. 102.48(d) which might warrant reopening of the record.
262 NLRB No. 169
cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order. 2
IT IS FURT1HER ORDERED that the complaint in
Case 4-CA-11875 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 Ill accordance with his partial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation,
250 NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the
backpay due based on the formula set forth therein.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL A. HARMATZ, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding was heard by me in Atlantic City, New
Jersey, on October 21 and 22, 1981, upon an initial unfair
labor practice charge filed in Case 4-CB--4170 on De-
cember 22, 1980, and a complaint which issued on Feb-
ruary 13, 1981, alleging that Respondent Union main-
tained a hiring practice of affording preference in job re-
ferrals to its members over nonmembers, and that it
failed and refused to refer Edward Pygatt and Jennings
Love for employment with Respondent Employers,' for
reasons other than failure to tender periodic dues and ini-
tiation fees, and thereby violated Section 8(b)(2) and Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
In Case 4-CA-11975, an initial charge was filed on
February 19, 1981, and a complaint issued on April 30,
1981, alleging that the Respondent Employers, together
with Respondent Union, have maintained a practice or
arrangement whereby members of the Union are accord-
ed employment preference over nonmembers, and that
Respondent Employers further violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by their failure to employ Edward
Pygatt and Jennings Love, the Charging Parties herein.
The various Respondents filed answers in which they
denied that any unfair labor practices were committed.
After close of the hearing, briefs were filed on behalf of
the General Counsel, the Charging Parties, Respondent
Union, Respondent Kooperman, and Respondent Clare-
mont. A statement was filed on behalf of Respondent
Shaid.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, including
direct observation of the witnesses while testifying and
their demeanor, and upon consideration of the post-hear-
ing briefs, it is hereby found as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent Polis Wallcovering, Inc., is a Pennsylvania
corporation engaged in the installation of wallcoverings,
with a principal place of business located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. During the calendar year preceding the in-
stant hearing, Respondent Polis Wallcovering in the
course of said operations purchased and received goods
I Pursuant to withdrawal request on behalf of the Charging Parties and
on motion of the General Counsel, two employers originally named as
Respondents, "Paul C. Morganweck & Sons" aid "Fdward Ravelli,"
were deleted at the hearing from the class of Employers charged with
unfair labor practices in this proceeding.
1336
POLIS WALLCOVERING CO.
valued in excess of $50,000, shipped directly from points
located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Respondent Economy Decorators, Inc. of New Jersey
(EDI) is a New Jersey corporation engaged in paper-
hanging from its place of business in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey. During the calendar year preceding the instant
hearing, EDI, in the course of said operations, provided
services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of New Jersey.
Respondent Charles Shaid of New Jersey is a New
Jersey corporation engaged in painting and allied serv-
ices from its office located in Margate, New Jersey. In
the course of said operations, Charles Shaid, during the
calendar year preceding the hearing, performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located direct-
ly outside the State of New Jersey.
Respondent S. W. Kooperman, Inc., is a New Jersey
corporation and a painting contractor with an office in
Atlantic City, New Jersey. In the course of its oper-
ations, S. W. Kooperman, Inc., performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located direct-
ly outside the State of New Jersey.
Respondent Ponzio & Sons, Inc., is a New Jersey cor-
poration with a place of business located in Atlantic
City, New Jersey, from which it is engaged in general
contracting. During the calendar year preceding the
hearing, Ponzio & Sons, Inc., in the course of said oper-
ations, purchased and received goods valued in excess of
S50,000 from points directly outside the State of New
Jersey.
Respondent Claremont Painting and Decorating Co.,
Inc., is a New Jersey corporation engaged in painting
and allied trades from its place of business located in At-
lantic City, New Jersey. During the calendar year pre-
ceding the hearing, Respondent Claremont in the course
of said operations performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 for customers located outside the State of New
Jersey.
Respondent Willard Painting and Sandblasting is a
New Jersey corporation engaged in sandblasting and
painting from its place of business located in Somers
Point, New Jersey. During the calendar year preceding
the instant hearing, Willard Painting and Sandblasting
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for the
Government of the United States.
The complaints allege, and based on the foregoing it is
found, that Respondents Polis Wallcovering Co., Econo-
my Decorators, Inc. of New Jersey, Ponzio & Sons, Inc.,
S. W. Kooperman, Inc., Charles Shaid of New Jersey,
Claremont Painting and Decorating Co., Inc., and Wil-
lard Painting and Sandblasting are, and have been at all
times material herein, employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaints allege, and it is found, that Local
Union No. 277, International Brotherhood of Painters
and Allied Trades, is, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In this proceeding the General Counsel levels an
attack upon an important source of skilled painters and
paperhangers in Atlantic City, New Jersey, first alleging
that Local 277's hiring hall was maintained in a fashion
extending illegal preference to members over non-
members, and second that a paperhanger, Edward
Pygatt, and a painter apprentice, Jennings Love, were
denied employment referrals for unlawful reasons. In
consequence, Local 277 is charged with violations of
Section 8(bX2) and (IXA), and certain named employers
who utilized the hiring hall within the 10(b) period are
charged in a separate complaint with violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The unfair labor practice allegations focus upon a
period which corresponds with the development of the
casino gambling industry in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
The construction, remodeling, and restoration of hotels
for that purpose created heavy demand for skilled paint-
ers and paperhangers. This revitalization of the decorat-
ing industry began in 1977 when Local 277 had 25 mem-
bers. However, thereafter, as contractors entering the
Atlantic City market looked upon Local 277 as the pre-
ferred source of skilled decorating mechanics, its mem-
bership base was soon to expand to some 175. This
growth was accompanied by a less than mechanistic ap-
proach to job referrals.
Central to the inquiry is Local 277's collective-bar-
gaining agreement with employer-members of the Na-
tional Painting and Decorating Contractors of America.2
That, in effect at times material herein, included an arti-
cle IV, which set forth as follows:
Hiring
4.1-In the employment of workmen for all work
covered by this agreement, the following provision
shall govern:
(a) The union shall establish and maintain an
open and nondiscriminatory employment list for the
employment of workmen of this particular trade, in-
cluding journeymen painters and indentured appren-
tices previously employed by employers in the
multi-employer unit included in this agreement and
nonmember workers who may make applications
for a place on this list.
(b) Whenever desiring to employ workmen, the
employer shall call upon the union or its agent, for
any such workman as they may from time-to-time
need, and the Union or its agent shall immediately
furnish the employers the required number of quali-
fied and competent workmen needed by the em-
ployer.
(c) The union or its agent will furnish each such
required competent workman entered on said list to
the employer by use of a written referral, which
t There is neither evidence nor claim herein that any of Respondent
Employers were members of that association. Their liability has been liti-
gated on an individual, rather than multiemployer, basis.
1337
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall be mailed by the union to the workmen dis-
patched and will furnish such workmen from the
union open listing in the manner and order follow-
ing:
1. The specifically named workmen to have re-
cently been laid off or terminated by an employer
now desiring to reemploy the same workmen, pro-
vided they are available for employment.
2. Workmen who have been employed by an em-
ployer within the unit covered by this agreement
during the previous 10 years.
3. Workmen whose names are entered on the list
above referred to and who are available for employ-
ment.
(d) Reasonable advance notice (but not less than
24 hours) will be given by the employer to the
Union or its agent upon ordering such workmen,
and in the event that within (48) hours after such
notice, the union or its agent shall not furnish such
workmen, the employer may procure workmen
from any other source or sources.
If the workmen are so employed, the employer
shall, within 24 hours report to the union or its
agent such workmen by name, and social security
account number.
(e) The Employer shall have entire freedom of
selectivity and hiring and may reject any person re-
ferred to it by the union.
(f) A notice incorporating the above enumerated
terms and conditions relating to the hiring system
shall be conspicuously posted at the union's office
and principle [sic] place of business.
(g) No provision of this agreement shall be based
upon or anyway affected by the union membership,
bylaws, regulations, constitutional provisions or any
other aspect or obligation of any union membership,
policies or requirement.s
B. The Alleged Discrimination
1. The alleged unlawful preference
The General Counsel does not contend that the above
contractual hiring arrangement was unlawful on its face.
Instead, it is claimed that said arrangement, as adminis-
tered by the Union, ignored objective criteria or stand-
ards and extended an unlawful preference upon members
as against nonmembers. 4
3 See G.C. Exh. 2, pp. 7-9.
4 Among its defenses, the Union contends that the specific allegation in
the complaint relevant here was too vague and uncertain as to be main-
tainable without violating due process rights. However, early in the hear-
ing, at the conclusion of the opening statement by counsel for Respond-
ent Union, in colloquy with me, it was made clear that the "preference
issue" was viable, and that no impropriety derived from the General
Counsel's failure to accompany said allegation with the names of individ-
uals victimized by any such discrimination. The litigation commenced
with what I perceived to be full understanding on the pan of the Union
that the general allegations of discriminatory preference raised issues sep-
arate and distinct from those pertaining to Charging Parties Pygatt and
Love. Furthermore, opportunity was at that time extended to request a
continuance if the Union were misled or failed to understand the allega-
tions in the complaint. No such request was made and the issue under
consideration here was fully litigated. The procedural questions raised by
the Union are deemed lacking in merit.
James T. Brennan, the business manager of Local 277,
was the sole custodian of authority with respect to refer-
rals under the hiring arrangement. Brennan's testimony
as to the operation of the hiring hall is critical to the
General Counsel's assertion in this regard. It indicates
that no comprehensive out-of-work list is maintained sig-
nifying the time at which applicants, who are either
members or nonmembers, register as available for work.
According to Brennan, order of registry is irrelevant to
referral. Furthermore, there is no document signifying
preference as between members.5 As for nonmembers,
card racks are maintained and segregated into two cate-
gories. Thus, nonmembers who actually have been re-
ferred to jobs by Respondent Union are segregated from
those nonmembers who have not been referred. Beyond
that, the only information maintained by the Union perti-
nent to administration of the hiring hall is a list of recent-
ly laid-off members and nonmembers which is main-
tained to accommodate the right of employers to recall
their prior employees." However, inclusion on that list
conveys no further priority.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the only docu-
ment routinely maintained by the Union to implement
the hiring hall is that related to the listing of those re-
cently laid off. Otherwise there is no "open and nondis-
criminatory employment list" as called for by the con-
tract. Nor is there any listing from which the second
contractual preference category might be ascertained;
namely, those employed by employers within tht unit
covered by the agreement during the past 10 years.
7 Fi-
nally, documentation does not exist from which one
could determine, as of a given date, the identity of appli-
cants who had sought, or been accorded, jobs, or who
were available for employment.
As has been indicated employees are selected for refer-
ral without regard for order of registry or recorded pri-
ority. Instead, Brennan acts on his own judgment in ef-
fecting the choice. According to Brennan, the first pref-
erence is accorded to those specifically recalled, whose
names appear on the recent out-of-work list. Beyond
that, the first workmen referred are those who are
present in the hall at the time a job request comes in.
However, where those in attendance exceed the job
offers, Brennan alone decides between the job applicants,
I A general membership list exists, but it does not appear that this list
has any functional utility with respect to the hiring hall. Brennan indicat-
ed that he was aware of the identity of all members of the Local.
5 See G.C. Exh. 24. The General Counsel argues that discretion exer-
cised by Brennan in removing names from the above list contributes to
the allegation of discrimination herein. The document in question, ac-
cording to uncontradicted and entirely probable evidence, is maintained
exclusively for the purpose of fulfilling the Union's obligation to refer
available workmen recalled by employees as per the hiring hall contract.
Brennan's testimony that this list confers no other preference was be-
lieved. Further, there is no evidence that Brennan had ever denied an
employer's request for recall of an employee, whether or not that partic-
ular employee had been removed from said list. On the basis of the entire
record, that possibility is considered entirely unlikely. Accordingly, the
challenge to the discretion exercised by Brennan with respect to G.C.
Exh. 24 is viewed as immaterial to the issue of unlawful preference. At
best, the argument is cumulative.
7 Although, considering the small size of the Local in 1977, Brennan
presumably was aware of all within this category, applicants seeking
proof of such preference could not be accommodated.
1338
POLIS WALLCOVERING CO.
exercising complete and unfettered authority in this re-
spect. To implement the contractual requirement that the
Union furnish "competent" help, Brennan chooses be-
tween men without reference to agreed-upon or pub-
lished criteria. Although Brennan testified to the effect
that he will refer the best qualified man for the particular
job, it is clear that the basis for that determination is
purely personal and made without aid of objective fac-
tors. Measurable criteria are not utilized, no test is ad-
ministered, nor does the Union compile documentation
on a regular basis evidencing an employer's satisfaction
or dissatisfaction with the performance by a particular
workman referred by the Union. Brennan, in view of the
above, conceded to the obvious; namely, that he would
prefer men whose qualifications were known over those
whose qualifications were unknown. Thus, were such a
situation to arise the nonmember might be prejudiced,
because the abilities of the member would be known by
Brennan. In addition, Brennan, when asked to explain
how he would make the selection if all present at the
hall were equally competent, offered as follows:
It's a judgment call. The number one thing that
would enter my mind: Has this particular person
ever been employed by that particular employer
before? If so, that's the first one who would go. Has
he worked on a building where that particular con-
tractor was, but maybe he was employed by an-
other contractor, but on the same building, some-
times there are two or three contractors who go to
the same building. He would be familiar with that
operation, that particular contractor's operation, the
ways of their shop, their foreman, or whatever.
Many other things. It's a judgment call. It's the
only way it will ever work.
Despite potential for abuse Respondent did in fact
refer nonmembers along with union members. However,
the above description of the hiring hall policy strongly
supports the possibility that circumstances might arise in
which qualified nonmembers might be arbitrarily disad-
vantaged. Because Brennan would rely upon his subjec-
tive experience and opinion rather than objective stand-
ards, criteria, or examinations in assessing qualifications,
by his own admission, the familiar traits of members
would lead to a discriminatory preference should a situa-
tion arise where a nonmember is passed over who in fact
possessed greater competence.
The General Counsel asserts that: "It is well estab-
lished that the operation of an exclusive hiring hall with-
out any objective criteria or standard for the referral of
employees violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
See Local 394, Laborers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO (Building Contractors Association of
New Jersey), 247 NLRB 97, fn. 2 (1980). See also Jour-
neymen Pipefitters Local No. 392 (Kaiser Engineers, Inc.),
252 NLRB 417, 421-422 (1980); Local Union No. 174,
Teamsters, etc. (Totem Beverages, Inc.), 226 NLRB 690,
699-700 (1976). There can be no quarrel that this repre-
sents an accurate articulation of Board policy. However,
the precedent does not suggest that the Board, absent a
showing of actual discrimination, has ventured beyond
the conventional corrective relief in remedying such a
deficiency. Thus, in prior cases the Board has confined
itself to removing the potential for abuse and to enjoin-
ing labor organizations from making referrals without
reference to objective criteria and standards. No backpay
has been awarded to any unidentified job applicants nor
has liability been imposed upon employers. Here, the
General Counsel seeks both.
In quest of such a remedy, the General Counsel cannot
point to a single instance of discrimination. Unquestiona-
bly the manner in which referrals were administered of-
fered the opportunity to accord preference on the basis
of unlawful considerations. Nonetheless the concession
made by Brennan related merely to an unproven eventu-
ality in which union members would be competing for a
job against nonmembers who possessed equal or superior
qualification. There is no evidence that such a situation
ever arose or that any qualified job applicant was ever
prejudiced by reason of arbitrary, union-related, or other
consideration, barred by the Act. As I construe the evi-
dence in this regard, Brennan was simply describing his
policy and how he would react in described circum-
stances of a purely hypothetical nature. Such a disposi-
tion, proclivity, or inclination to effect discrimination
under an exclusive hiring hall would tend to restrain and
coerce employees in violation of Section 8(bXIXA), but
falls short of establishing that Local 277 has caused or
attempted to cause a single discriminatory act.8 "The
unfair labor practice is . . . to encourage or discourage
membership by means of discrimination .... Thus, this
section does not outlaw all encouragement or discour-
agement of membership in a labor organization; only
such as is accomplished by discrimination is prohibit-
ed."9 Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) by operating a hiring hall without refer-
ence to objective criteria or standards and by manifesting
an intention to make referrals under conditions which
might accord arbitrary preference to members over non-
members.' ° However, I do not find that Respondent
Union has caused or attempted to cause any employer to
discriminate in this respect so as to violate Section
8(b)(2). For identical reasons I shall dismiss the 8(aX3)
allegations pertaining to the general hiring hall practice.
2. Specific discrimination
a. Jennings V Love
Love, since 1978 when he became a member of Local
277, had been enrolled in an apprenticeship for the paint-
ing craft which was sponsored jointly by Local 277 and
contractors in the area. During his apprenticeship, Love
was referred to various contractors, including Respond-
ents Ponzio, Shaid, Kooperman, and Claremont.
I Local 357. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America [Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express] v.
N.LR.B., 365 US. 667, 671 (1961).
g The Radio Officers Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union
4.F.L. [A. H. Bull Steamship Company] v. N.LR.B., 347 U.S. 17, 42-43
(1954).
'o There is no evidence that Brennan, or any other representative of
Local 277. implemented any such policy at any time before, during, or
after the 10(b) cutoff date herein
1339
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 27, 1980, internal union disciplinary charges
were filed against Love by Brennan, founded upon asser-
tions that Love had violated membership obligations in
the following respects:
(1) Violation of the Oath of Membership, to wit:
Brother Love on the night of June 3, 1980, during
the general membership meeting did make malicious
statements about me.
(2) Violation of Section 245(4) of the Constitution
of the Brotherhood, to wit: Brother Love was dis-
loyal to the Brotherhood in his actions by going to
The Press and attempting to run a classified ad stat-
ing the Painters Local 277 is discriminatory.
(3) Violation of Section 245(5) to wit: he is re-
peatedly late, absent and when on the job he is con-
sistently missing from his assigned work place.
(4) Violation of Section 245(9) to wit: Brother
Love visited job sites in the week following the
membership meeting and harassed men at work in
an attempt to get members of Local 277 to sign
statements to be used against our Local.
(5) Violation of Section 245(10) to wit: Brother
Love did libel, slander and abuse me in my capacity
as Business Manager of Local 277 during his travels
around the job sites.
(6) Violation of Section 245(11) to wit: Brother
Love in front of the membership present at the
aforementioned meeting did abuse me.
(7) Violation of Section 245(13) to wit: Brother
Love in all of the above charges and through his
general demeanor and activities has brought the
Painters Union into disrepute and has caused a
shadow to be cast upon our good name.
On July 24, 1980, a Local 277 trial board found Love
guilty of certain of the above charges. He was fined
$2,450. In the meantime on July 5, 1980, William L.
Kinzer, Local 277's financial secretary, filed additional
charges against Love, as follows:
(1) Violation of the Oath of Membership, to wit:
Brother Love on the night of June 27th, 1980 did
make malicious statements inferring upon my integ-
rity as Financial Secretary.
(2) Violation of Section 245(4) to wit: Brother
Love was disloyal to the Brotherhood by assuming
that the Financial Affairs of Local 277 are not in
order and should be subject to the scrutiny of the
F.B.I.
(3) Violation of Section 245(5) to wit: Brother
Love's conduct is unbecoming a member of this
Brotherhood.
(4) Violation of Section 245(10) to wit: Brother
Love did libel and slander me in my status as Finan-
cial Secretary by stating that if the books were not
in order, he would get the F.B.I. after me.
(5) Violation of Section 245(13) to wit: Brother
Love through his general demeanor and activities
has brought the Painters Union into disrepute and
has cast a shadow upon our good name.
(6) Violation of Section 245(16) to wit: his acts
and conduct shall be considered inconsistent with
the duties obligations, and fealty of a member of
this Brotherhood.
On August 5, Love was found guilty of the charges,
and fined an additional $1,200. '
It is conceded that Local 277 has refused to refer
Love since August 1980. Nonetheless, Respondent Union
denies that Love's internal difficulties with Local 277
contributed to the denial of employment opportunities to
Love via the hiring hall. Instead it is contended that
Love's disqualification from the apprenticeship program
rendered him ineligible for referral.
Love's employment history was far from favorable.
Undisputed evidence establishes that Love was terminat-
ed for cause by Shaid in April 1979, by Kooperman in
August 1979, and by both Claremont and Ponzio in No-
vember 1979. After a second referral to Kooperman,
Love was again discharged by the latter in April 1980.
The last referral extended by Local 277 to Love was
on July 28, 1980, a few days after the second set of
charges was filed against him by Union Financial Secre-
tary Kinzer. Pursuant thereto, Love was rehired by
Shaid, a subcontractor on a job at Harrah's Club. Undis-
puted evidence shows that on August 15, 1980, Love
was discovered asleep on the floor in his work area by
the general contractor's superintendent. The matter was
reported to Shaid and Love was discharged immediately.
At the time of this discharge Love had not fulfilled the
apprenticeship. At a meeting of the joint apprenticeship
committee on September 18, 1980, Love was removed
from the apprenticeship program in consequence of (I)
his unsatisfactory performance on past jobs and (2) his
poor attendance with respect to the classroom phase of
the apprenticeship program. Love conceded that in a
conversation with Brennan in September he was told
that he "was no longer a part of the . . . apprentice
school."
I credit the testimony of Brennan that Local 277 is
only authorized to refer qualified mechanics and appren-
tices. No challenge to the legitimacy of the action of the
joint apprenticeship committee is registered, and from all
appearances the removal of Love from the apprentice-
ship on the basis of his past employment record, a recent
discharge for flagrant misconduct, and his failure to meet
the apprenticeship's classroom attendance requirements
seemed entirely reasonable. As I am convinced that this
action removed Love from the classifications legitimately
encompassed within the hiring arrangement, I find that
Local 277 would not have referred Love even if he had
not engaged in conduct found offensive by union offi-
cials and which formed the predicate for internal union
discipline. Accordingly, I find that Respondent Local
277 did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act
in refusing to refer him and I shall dismiss the allegations
"' It was the Union's policy that membership dues would not be ac-
cepted until all outstanding disciplinary fines were paid. Love understood
this to be the case. Apparently, Love had no intention of paying the
fines, and because of the aforesaid policy ceased paying dues in August
1980.
1340
POLIS WALLCOVERING CO.
that Respondent Employers violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act in this respect on a derivative basis.12
b. Edward W Pygatt
Prior to his involvement with Local 277, Pygatt had
been a paperhanger for some 30 years. In April 1977, he
became a member of Local 277. Until June 25, 1980,
Pygatt was referred by Local 277 within his craft to var-
ious jobs, but he apparently failed to earn a favored
status among certain of his employers. His referrals ter-
minated following internal disciplinary charges filed
against him by Brennan on June 27, 1980. The charges
alleged as follows:
(1) Violation of the Oath of Membership, to wit:
Brother Pygatt did knowingly wrong me by making
false and erroneous damaging statements to The
Press, such statements being published Thursday,
June 26, 1980.
(2) Violation of Section 245(4) of the Constitution
of the Brotherhood, to wit: disloyalty to the Broth-
erhood by faulting our procedures in The Press.
(3) Violation of Section 245(5) Brother Pygatt's
conduct certainly is not becoming a union member.
(4) Violation of Section 245(10) Brother Pygatt
did in the above mentioned issue of The Press, libel,
slander and abuse me in my capacity of Business
Manager of Painter Local 277.
(5) Violation of Section 245(13) to wit: Brother
Pygatt did engage in activities that have in fact
brought the Brotherhood into disrepute and caused
a shadow to be cast on our good name.
On July 24, Pygatt was found guilty by a union trial
board and fined $3,200. On August 26, 1980, further
charges were filed against Pygatt by Terry Mulholland,
Respondent's recording secretary, as follows:
(1) Violation of Oath of Membership, to wit:
Brother Pygatt did knowingly wrong the Brother-
hood by his statements and actions.
(2) Violation of Section 245(4) of the Constitution
of the Brotherhood. to wit: disloyalty to the Broth-
erhood by picketing our Union Hall on August
16th, 1980.
(3) Violation of Section 245(5) Brother Pygatt's
conduct is certainly not becoming a Union Member.
t2 International Union of Operating Engineers Local I& AFL-CIO
(Ohio Contrctors Associatrion), 234 NLRB 681 (1973); Local 873. Inierna-
tional Brotherhood o/ Electrical Workers AFL-CIO (Kokomo-Marian Divi-
sion, etc), 250 NLPB 928 (1980). The motivation described in the com-
plaint as unlawful is the refusal to refer "for reasons other than the . . .
employee's failure to tender periodic dues and the initiation fees uniform-
ly required as a condition of requiring or retaining membership in Re-
spondent." There can be no question but that Respondent acted against
Love for reasons other than nonpayment of dues. However, in the con-
text of challenged discrimination under a hiring hall, this is not an appro-
priate expression of unlawful motivation. Denial of referral under a legiti-
mate, objective standard, such as senionty, would fall within the com-
plaint's broad classification of motive. Simply stated, there are circum-
stances in which referral might legitimately be denied under an exclusive
hiring hall for reasons other than the nonpayment of dues or initiation
fees.
(4) Violation of Section 245(12) Brother Pygatt
was picketing our Union Hall in his overalls which
is against our Local Work Rules.
(5) Violation of Section 245(13) to wit: Brother
Pygatt did engage in activities that have in fact
brought The Brotherhood into disrepute and caused
a shadow to be cast on our good name.
On September 26, 1980, Pygatt was found guilty on
charges and fined an additional $1,000. Pygatt declined
to pay the fines and, pursuant to union policy whereby
dues could not be accepted until the payment of out-
standing fines, Pygatt's tender of dues was rejected. Ac-
cordingly, Pygatt was subsequently expelled from Local
277 for nonpayment of dues.
Respondent has admittedly refused to refer Pygatt
since June 25, 1980. Since that date, however, it admit-
tedly has referred paperhangers for employment to var-
ious decorating contractors. Respondent Union defends
on grounds that it was contractually obligated to refer
"competent" employees, and that referral of Pygatt
would violate that requirement as he had proven unsatis-
factory to "every" contractor in the area to which he
had been referred.
Pygatt for a period of 10 years owned and operated an
insurance firm which required his attention from time to
time during the period in which he was gainfully em-
ployed as a paperhanger on referral from Local 277. His
difficulties with Respondents EDI, Polis, and Ponzio
might well have been in consequence of the demands of
this outside business. Thus, uncontradicted evidence es-
tablishes that EDI employed Pygatt on a job at Resorts
International in 1977, but terminated him on August 22,
1977, because of his poor attendance, lateness, and lack
of productivity. After intervention of Brennan on behalf
of Pygatt, EDI rehired him on November 8, 1977. After
his reinstatement, Pygatt's lateness and absenteeism per-
sisted, and in January 1978 he again was terminated fol-
lowing a dispute with an EDI job foreman. Apparently
in 1979, after rehire and further termination, Pygatt insti-
tuted an action before a local "affirmative action group"
alleging that EDI had discriminated against him. EDI's
defense, founded on Pygatt's work inadequacies, was sus-
tained in that proceeding. In relation to said proceeding,
Jerry Rebock, EDI's vice president, informed Local 277
by letter dated March 26, 1979, as follows:
Based on my experiences with workmen, I feel that
Mr. Pygatt is a below-average employee. His work
habits are poor and his ability to get along with his
fellow co-workers is not good. In his case, I feel
that we went overbdard to try and keep this man in
our employ.
Rebock also testified that the Union was informed that
EDI did not desire to have Pygatt referred again.
After his termination from EDI, Pygatt was referred
to Ponzio and Sons, a paperhanging, painting, and deco-
rating contractor. Pygatt was hired on April 16, 1980,
and was terminated on April 23, 1980, after having
worked approximately I week. Joseph C. Fenton, Jr.,
testified that Pygatt was terminated by him on the latter
1341
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date because of "frequent no-shows, poor attitude, and
. . . inability to work without constant supervision."' s
According to Fenton, Pygatt's earnings during that week
were less than half of what they would have been had he
not taken so much time off. According to Fenton, it was
his belief" that the Union subsequently attempted to
refer Pygatt to Ponzio, but that he informed the Union
that if someone else were available Fenton would prefer
that individual.' l 5
After Ponzio, Pygatt was referred by Local 277 in
April 1980 for employment with Polis. Joseph Kleiman,
president of Polis, testified that on June 25, 1980, when
he was under a rush to complete his work at the Brigh-
ton Hotel and Casino, Pygatt quit him at a time when
sufficient manpower was unavailable to complete the job.
According to Kleiman, he pleaded with Pygatt to stay,
but Pygatt simply told him that "he had something to do
on his own." Kleiman testified that he informed the
Union that he did not wish to rehire Pygatt because "if
anybody quits me when I need them most, I have no
need for him." Though his capacity for recollection was
not the clearest, Kleiman went on to testify credibly and
without contradiction that, in August 1980 and again in
January 1981, Pygatt approached him directly seeking
reemployment. Kleiman refused Pygatt on both occa-
sions. According to the former, out of fear that Pygatt
would file a complaint, he wrote the Union on August
12, 1980, following Pygatt's first rehire request, which
letter recited as follows: '
This letter is to inform you that I have no desire to
employ Mr. Edward Pygatt on any of my jobs. He
was absent from the job several times without in-
forming a foreman. Also he quit when we needed
him most.
After Pygatt quit Polis, he appears to have first at-
tempted to register with Local 277 on July 31, 1980,
when he telephoned Brennan advising that he "was
ready to go back to work." Brennan responded by indi-
cating, "well, we only have one job going, that's a Polis
job and he doesn't want you to work for him.... In
fact, I got a letter here to prove it."17 Pygatt asked to
" Pygatt's termination coincided with the completion of the particular
job.
t4 Pygatt testified that in March 1980 he told Brennan that he had no
desire to be referred to Ponzio in the future because he did not like
working conditions of that firm. Based thereon, the General Counsel
agreed that no violation could be found as against Ponzio derived from
the treatment of Pygatt under the hiring hall.
'" By letter written over a year later and dated June 19, 1981, Fenton
informed the Union that, on April 23, Pygatt was terminated by reason of
"poor attitude," "frequent lateness and no-shows," and inability to work
without supervision. The letter was written at the urging of the Union,
assertedly in response to Fenton's indication that it would prefer others
to Pygatt. The letter stated that Ponzio would decline to employ Pygatt
"unless absolutely necessary and only for the absolute minimum period of
time that his services would be required."
1" Brennan testified that, in early August 1980, Polis, in connection
with a new job at Harrah's Club, called requesting manpower. According
to Brennan, Kleiman was asked if he would take Eddie Pygatt. Kleiman
responded by indicating that he had told Brennan not to send Pygatt
back to him. At that point Brennan requested that Kleiman write him a
letter to that effect.
" Based on the credited testimony of Brennan, Pygatt's version differs
only in the sense that Brennan allegedly accused him of quitting Polis
see the letter, a request that Brennan denied. Brennan
also told Pygatt that he had been sent to every wallco-
vering contractor in the territory, none of whom would
take Pygatt back, while indicating that he had an obliga-
tion to his membership to comply with the contract and
send only competent workmen.
According to Brennan, Local 277's refusal thereafter
to refer Pygatt was because he had proven himself to be
incompetent. As the justification goes, under the contract
Local 277 was obligated to refer only competent work-
men, and to refer a proven incompetent could result in
liability pursuant to the holding of a New Jersey Federal
court." 8 I did not believe Brennan and find that his
stated ground for interference with the employment op-
portunities of Pygatt were pretextual.
It is noted in this connection that Brennan admittedly
had no quarrel with Pygatt's workmanship. In the words
of Brennan, "the quality of his work was good, what he
did was good." Specific evidence merely reveals that Py-
gatt's work deficiencies related to attendance problems
developed in the course of employment with three con-
tractors.
Brennan conceded, however, that in either 1978 or
early 1979 Pygatt was referred to Tri-Deck, a Maryland-
based firm that worked on Caesar's Boardwalk Regency,
a job completed in late 1978 or early 1979. He also con-
ceded that, at the Boardwalk Holiday Inn, Pygatt was
referred to another contractor, "Interiors by Anthony,"
in 1979. There is no indication that either Tri-Deck or
Interiors by Anthony had any problem with Pygatt's
performance.
Finally, Brennan's own testimony indicates that con-
cern for liability of his Local took second place to his
hostility against Pygatt. Brennan admitted that Pygatt
was not to be accorded a preference over nonmembers,
who had never been referred by Local 277 and whose
competence or lack thereof was unknown. When asked
to explain, Brennan responded as follows:
He [Pygatt] had been proven, by contractors to be
incompetent. You're asking me point blank would I
refer him out above someone who had never been
sent, no, I would not . .. I would have sent some-
one who we have not tried yet, who had not been
proven incompetent. He had been proven by every
contractor that he worked for to be incompetent.
In the total circumstances, it is concluded that Bren-
nan terminated, effectively, Pygatt's access to the hiring
hall upon the same considerations which resulted in the
imposition of union discipline, fimes, and ultimate expul-
sion of Pygatt from union membership."g In these cir-
twice. Brennan claimed that he also referred to the other contractors that
were disatiafied with Pygatt.
" Nivins v. Sievers Hauling Ca, 424 F.Supp. 82 (D.C. N.J. 1976).
is Respondent Union contends that the General Counsel failed to
prove that there were any jobs to which Pygatt could be referred during
the period since June 1979. The record discloses, however, that Local
277 referred paperhangers to numerous contractors during the period in
which it declined to refer Pygatt. Respondent apparently contends that
this evidence is insufficient to establish that jobs were available to which
Pygatt could be referred. However, in Utility and Industrial Construction
Continued
1342
POLIS WALLCOVERING CO.
cumstances, the denial of referral, being so motivated,
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.20
In Case 4-CA-11875, the General Counsel contends
that Respondents Claremont, EDI, and Polis are "vicar-
iously" responsible for Local 277's unlawful treatment of
Pygatt and, accordingly, each should be deemed to have
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. See, e.g.,
Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., et al., 123 NLRB 12, 24
(1959), enfd. 275 F.2d 914 (2d Cir. 1960); Lummus Com-
pany, 142 NLRB 517, 520 (1963), enforcement denied in
material part 339 F.2d 728, 731, 735-738 (D.C. Cir.
1964). The above-named contractors are not party to any
agreement with Local 277. Each is a nonresident con-
tractor which apparently utilizes the latter's hiring hall as
a matter of convenience while abiding by the terms of
Local 277's agreement on a voluntary basis. In any
event, the General Counsel concedes that, as a matter of
law, liability is not to be imposed upon any of said con-
tractors if "they can prove that they would not have em-
ployed Pygatt even if he had been referred by Respond-
ent. 21t
The ahove allegations shall be dismissed insofar as
they apply to Claremont. Credible evidence fails to es-
tablish that that firm had ever employed Pygatt or that it
utilizes Local 277's hiring hall as a source of referral for
those within the paperhanger classification. 22 Thus,
Claremont is situated identically to Shaid and Kooper-
man, as to whom the appropriateness of dismissal is con-
ceded.
EDI employed Pygatt on a number of occasions be-
tween June 24, 1977, and January 19, 1979. As hereto-
fore set forth, multiple terminations of Pygatt ultimately
led EDI to express the view that it no longer desired re-
ferral of Pygatt. No challenge is laid to the misconduct
that furnished the foundation underlying that view, and
in the face of Pygatt's adverse work record, I am per-
Company, 214 NLRBl 1I
5
3 (1974), the Board acknowledged that specific
proof to this effect was not indispensable in circumstances where a labor
organization has declared unlawfully that an employee will not be re-
ferred under its exclusive hiring hall. In so holding, the Board stated as
follows:
We have consistently held that to establish a violation, it is unneces-
sary to show that jobs were available at the time of the request for
referral. The stated reason for the Union's refusndl to register and
refer was nonmembership. Hence, we find that by refusing .. . to
register and refer [the employee] the Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(l I(A) and 8b){(2) of the Act.
0 International Union of Operating Engineers Local 406 (New Orleans
Chapter. .4ssociated General Contractors of America, Inc.), 189 NLRB 225
(1971): Laborers' Local Union 1440 (Southern Wisconsin Contractors Associ-
ationJ, 233 NLRB 1366 (1977).
21 On this basis, the General Counsel concedes that no liability inures
in the case of Respondents Shaid and Koopermnan, neither of which em-
ployed paperhangers, and Respondent Willard, which did not seek refer-
ral Or paperhangerl during the critical period involved in this proceeding.
22 in :his respect. I prefer the testimony of Thomas Passerello, Clare-
mon' s paint supervisor, over (I) testimony of Pygatt elicited by prejudi-
cially leading questions and (2) what I consider to be an erroneous impli-
cation in that of Brennan. Brennan was asked by the General Counsel to
name all contractors to whom he did not refer paperhangers. Claremont
was omitted by Brennan However, Passerello observed that two "paint-
ers" employed by Claremont and referred by Local 277 possessed paper-
hanging skills. Brennan's omission of Claremont may have been induced
by this ambiguity. Passerello was considered to be the more reliable wit-
nes'.
suaded that EDI would have rejected Pygatt,2 3 as was
its right, even if the Union had referred him under non-
discriminatory conditions. Accordingly, the 8(a)(3) and
(1) allegations with respect to EDI shall be dismissed.
For like reasons, the 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations shall be
dismissed as against Polis. On the basis of previously dis-
cussed testimony of Kleiman, I am satisfied that Polis,
having refused to hire Pygatt on two prior occasions,
would have rejected Pygatt a third time if referred.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Polis Wallcovering Co., Economy
Decorators Inc. of New Jersey, Ponzio & Sons, Inc., S.
W. Kooperman, Inc., Charles Shaid of New Jersey,
Claremont Painting and Decorating Co., Inc., and Wil-
lard Painting and Decorating Co., Inc., are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Local Union No. 277, International
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Local 277 violated Section 8(b)(1)XA)
by maintaining an exclusive hiring hall whereby employ-
ment referrals are made without reference to objective
standards or criteria so as to enhance the possibility that
members will receive a preference over nonmembers.
4. Respondent Local 277 did not violate Section
8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act by refusing to refer Jen-
nings Love for employment following his legitimate re-
moval from any classification subject to referral under
Local 277's hiring hall.
5. Respondent Local 277 violated Section 8(b)(2) and
8(b)(IXA) of the Act by refusing to refer Edward Pygatt
for employment because he engaged in conduct viewed
by union officials as disloyal.
6. Respondents Polis Wallcovering Co., Economy
Decorators Inc. of New Jersey, Ponzio & Sons, Inc., S.
W. Kooperman, Charles Shaid of New Jersey, Clare-
mont Painting and Decorating Co., Inc., and Willard
Painting and Sandblasting did not violate Section 8(aX3)
and (1) with respect to the employment of Edward W.
Pygatt or Jennings V. Love.
7. The unfair labor practices found in paragraph 5
above have an effect upon commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Local 277 has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the Act, it shall be ordered to cease and desist therefrom.
Certain affirmative action shall also be recommended de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent Local 277
denied referral to Edward W. Pygatt in violation of Sec-
tion 8(bX2) and (I)(A) of the Act, it shall be recommend-
ed that he be made whole for any loss of earnings suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against him by pay-
ment of a sum equal to that which he normally would
's The EDI letter of March 26, 1979, was sent well in advance of the
filing of the unfair labor practice charges giving rise to this proceeding.
1343
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have earned as wages from the date of discrimination
against him until such time as Respondent Union proper-
ly refers him for employment, less net interim earnings
during such period. Backpay is to be computed in the
manner prescribed in F: W Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).24
It shall be recommended that Respondent be ordered
to maintain and operate its exclusive job referral system
in a nondiscriminatory fashion based upon published, ob-
jective criteria or standards and that recordkeeping be
initiated which will reflect priorities called for by the
collective-bargaining agreement as well as all available
job opportunities and referrals. Said records must be in-
telligible and adequate to fully disclose the basis upon
which referral is made, and sufficiently accessible to
enable applicants to ascertain that their hiring rights are
protected and that referrals are made in a fair and impar-
tial manner.
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:
ORDER 2 5
The Respondent, Local 277, International Brotherhood
of Painters and Allied Trades, Atlantic City, New
Jersey, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause discrimination
against Edward W. Pygatt, by refusing to refer him to
work available under its exclusive referral procedure, or
by otherwise causing discrimination against him for rea-
sons proscribed by the Act.
(b) Maintaining an exclusive hiring hall whereby refer-
rals are made without reference to published objective
criteria or standards, thereby enabling arbitrary prefer-
ence to members over nonmembers.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing applicants for referrals in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Maintain and operate its exclusive job referral
system in a nondiscriminatory manner based upon pub-
lished, objective criteria or standards, and maintain,
under conditions accessible to all applicants, legible
books and records enabling determination on a compre-
hensive basis of preferences and referrals as set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make whole Edward W. Pygatt for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against him by payment of a sum of money equal
to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of the discrimination against him until such
time as he is referred to employment in a nondiscrimina-
24 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Hlearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
2 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.
tory manner, with interest to be computed in the manner
set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
hiring hall records, dispatch lists, referral cards, and
other documents necessary to analyze and compute the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its office and hiring hall in Atlantic City,
New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix."26 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent
Union, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members or applicants for refer-
ral are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
26 In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELAT IONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been found that we violated
the law by committing unfair labor practices. According-
ly, we post this notice and we shall keep the promises
we make in this notice:
WE WILI NOT maintain our exclusive hiring hall
pursuant to policies or practices whereby referrals
are made on any basis other than published objec-
tive standards or criteria.
WE WILL NOT maintain our exclusive hiring hall
under conditions which enahle arbitrary preference
to members over nonmembers
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause employ-
ers to discriminate against Edward W. Pygatt or
any other applicant for employment for reasons pre-
scribed by the National Labor Relations Act.
'WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce job applicants in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Edward W. Pygatt for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination we caused against him, with
interest.
WE WILL revise our policy and practices to
assure that our exclusive job referral system func-
1344
POLIS WALLCOVERING CO.
tions on a nondiscriminatory basis by adopting, pub-
lishing, and adhering to objective criteria or stand-
ards so as to assure to job applicants that referral is
conferred in a fair and impartial manner, and with-
out reference to union membership.
LOCAL UNION NO. 277, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED
TRADES
1345
