Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 426,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 856 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union No. 426,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Great
Lakes Contracting of Detroit , Inc.) and Samuel
Lindsey and Kenneth Marsee . Cases 7-CB-1934(1)
and 7-CB-1934(2)
January 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On October 15, 1969, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions with a supporting brief and a
brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this
case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Reinforcing Iron
Workers, Local Union No. 426, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner. Pursuant to,
charges filed on March 11, 1969, by Samuel Lindsey and
Kenneth Marsee against Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local
Union No. 426, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as Respondent, a complaint issued
on July 1, 1969. The complaint alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
attempting to cause employees at a job site to stop work
because the charging parties, who were employed at the
site, were not members of the Union and had no work
permits, by making possession of work permits a
condition of continued employment for the charging
parties, and by causing their employer to discharge the
charging parties and thereafter refuse to employ them
because they were not members of the Union. In its
Answer Respondent denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
A hearing was held before me on July 28, 1969, at
Detroit, Michigan. At the close of the hearing, oral
argument was waived, and the parties were given leave to
file briefs. Briefs have been received from the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Great Lakes Contracting of Detroit, Inc. referred to
herein as Great Lakes, is a Michigan corporation engaged
in the construction of highways and highway bridges in
the State of Michigan. During the calendar year 1968, a
representative period, Great Lakes had gross revenue in
excess of $500,000, and purchased construction materials
valued at in excess of $50,000 which were transported to
Michigan job sites directly from points located outside the
State of Michigan. I find that Great Lakes is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE FACTS
In a prior proceeding which culminated in adjudications
in civil and criminal contempt in September and
November 1965, a consent decree was entered by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on
October 27, 1964, requiring Respondent to cease and
desist from (1) maintaining any agreement or practice
pursuant to which nonmembers are requested to obtain
work permits as a condition of employment; (2) causing
or attempting to cause any employer to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (4)
of the Act; and (3) causing or attempting to cause
interruptions of employment because an employee does
not have a work permit.
The instant case, alleging conduct similar to that
interdicted by the decree, arose out of the employment of
Samuel Lindsey and Kenneth Marsee by Great Lakes
during the early part of 1969. Marsee had worked for
Great Lakes since 1967. Lindsey had worked for Great
Lakes off and on in the past and was reemployed in
February 1969. Both worked as rodbusters. Neither was a
member of Respondent but in the past, both had made a
practice of buying weekly work permits from Respondent,
which Respondent furnished them for a fee.
180 NLRB No. 124
REINFORCING IRON WORKERS , LOCAL 426 857
Around the beginning of 1969, Lindsey and Marsee
took journeyman examinations given by Respondent. Both
failed. Thereafter both were invited to join Respondent's
apprenticeship program. Both declined.
On February 23, 1969, Don Bunch, foreman for Great
Lakes, telephoned Lindsey and asked him if he wished to
return to work for Great Lakes. Lindsey accepted, and the
following day Bunch gave Lindsey a letter to take to
Respondent's hall notifying Respondent that Lindsey had
been requested to go to work for Great Lakes. Lindsey
took the letter to Respondent' s Business Manager
Wheeler and asked for a work permit. Wheeler refused to
give Lindsey a permit on the ground that he had failed the
journeyman test and was not qualified to work as a
rodbuster. Thereafter on advice of Great Lakes' counsel,
Lindsey sent Respondent a letter in which he asked to join
Respondent and enclosed a money order for l month's
dues. Respondent did not accept his application or reply
to it until June l when his letter and money order were
returned to him without explanation.
In late February Bunch spoke to Wheeler twice about
Lindsey's status with Respondent. Bunch asked if Wheeler
would give Lindsey a permit. Wheeler replied that he
would not because Lindsey was not a journeyman.
However, he also told Bunch that because of Respondent's
problems with the NLRB, Wheeler could not stop Lindsey
from going to work and that Bunch knew that.'
On February 25, Lindsey started to work at a jobsite
referred to as the Maybury-Grand jobsite. That day,
Terry Carlin, job steward for Respondent, asked to see his
union book. Lindsey said he did not have one. Carlin
asked if he had a permit. Lindsey said he did not but
showed Carlin a copy of the letter he had sent Respondent
and his money order receipt. Carlin said he would put this
information in his steward's report.
Marsee was then employed on the same jobsite. Until
that time he had obtained work permits from Respondent
regularly by mail. On February 26, he mailed a money
order to Respondent to obtain a new work permit.
On March 6, Carlin asked Marsee to show him his
union book or permit. Marsee replied that he did not have
a book but that he had a receipt for the money order he
sent to Respondent. Carlin told Marsee that if he did not
have a permit he would have to leave.
Carlin then went to Joseph Holbert, Great Lakes job
foreman, and told him that Lindsey and Marsee did not
have permits and were nonunion. Holbert asked him who
said so. Carlin replied that Wheeler had said so and that
they should not be working.' Holbert replied that he
would continue to work them until Wheeler came to the
jobsite and told him they were nonunion and that he was
not to work with them. Carlin told Holbert that he was
going to call a meeting of the stewards of the various
trades working for the contractors on the job to see if they
would work with nonunion help on the job. Carlin also
told Holbert that he had better call Bunch to the jobsite
to straighten the matter out.
Carlin then gathered the laborer, carpenter, and
pile-driver stewards, and told them that Holbert had
nonunion help on the job. The other stewards asked
Holbert if he had nonunion help, and Holbert replied that
'Wheeler so testified . Bunch testified that he talked to Wheeler about the
permit, but could not recall that Wheeler said he would not interfere with
Lindsey's employment . I have credited Wheeler.
'Holbert testified that Carlin never said in so many words that Lindsey
and Marsee could not work but said they should not be working . Holbert,
Bunch , and Marsee testified to Carlin' s actions and statements at this time.
Carlin did not appear as a witness.
in his opinion he did not. Carlin asked the carpenters'
steward if he would allow his men to work with nonunion
help and expressed the view that everyone should get sick,
go fishing, or something like that During this
conversation, Carlin told Holbert that Bunch should send
Marsee and Lindsey up north or something "before they
get hurt." Carlin suggested that the carpenters' steward
call his business agent for advice, and again suggested that
Holbert call Bunch to the job site.
Holbert and Carlin then went to a telephone and spoke
to Bunch . They then returned to the site to await the
arrival of Bunch. While they were waiting Kinsey, job
superintendent for another contractor at the site, asked
Carlin why he was holding up the job. Carlin denied that
he was.
Bunch arrived at the jobsite and spoke to the stewards.
He instructed Lindsey, Marsee, and Holbert to return to
work, and talked further to the stewards. The stewards
then returned to work, except for Carlin who left the
jobsite. As he left, he stopped near Holbert and told him
he was going to the Union hall to file charges against
Holbert for working with nonunion help. He also said that
the next day there would be no one working on the job.
He repeated the latter statement to Bunch and Kinsey.
Bunch asked if he meant there would be a picket line.
Carlin replied that no one would be working because they
would be sick or gone fishing.
The various stewards, Holbert, Lindsey, and Marsee,
did not work for an hour or two between the time that
Carlin raised the matter and the time he left. Other
employees at the job site did not stop work.
There was no work stoppage on the following day.
However, on Monday, March 10, at the jobsite, Carlin
again asked to see the permits of Lindsey and Marsee.
They again showed him money order receipts. He said
that these were not permits and that they should not be
working on the job. He suggested that Marsee go to the
hall to get his permit if he had paid for it Carlin left the
jobsite. Marsee went to the hall and spoke to Wheeler
who returned his money order to him Marsee asked
Wheeler if he was refusing him a permit. Wheeler replied
that Marsee had failed the journeyman test and was not
qualified to be a rodbuster, but he was qualified to work
with the scabs Great Lakes employed.'
Carlin also visited the union hall after leaving the
jobsite where, according to Wheeler, Carlin asked Wheeler
what he was going to do to the two men who were
working without permits. Wheeler testified that he told
Carlin to leave them alone, go back to work, and keep his
mouth shut about it.
After speaking to Wheeler, Marsee returned to the
jobsite and resumed work with Lindsey and Holbert. At
about 11 a.m. Carlin returned to the jobsite and told
Holbert that he had better stop Lindsey and Marsee from
working. Holbert asked why. Carlin replied, "Because if
you don't those two rodbusters will." Holbert asked
"What two rod- busters." Carlin said, "The two coming
over the hill." Holbert turned and saw two tall, heavyset
members of Respondent, Calderon and Vernier,
approaching them.
Calderon and Vernier asked Holbert if he was foreman
on the job. He replied affirmatively. They asked to see his
union book. He gave them his book number. Then they
asked Lindsey and Marsee if they were book men. They
'Marsee so testified Wheeler testified that he told Marsee he would not
give him a permit because he was not capable of doing his job, but that he
would not stop him from working.
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or Carlin mentioned that they had money order receipts.
Calderon said the receipts were not permits, that Lindsey
and Marsee were nonunion and should not be working,
and that Holbert should not be working with them.
Calderon and Vernier told Lindsey and Marsee that they
were going to stop working and could do it the hard way
or the easy way, which ever way they wanted it. Both then
agreed to stop work and left the job. Calderon then told
Holbert that he was going to file charges against him for
working with nonunion men. Calderon and Vernier then
left.
On the next day, Marsee and Lindsey went to the Great
Lakes office where they were given letters notifying them
that they were laid off until they received permission from
Respondent to work
Thereafter, Lindsey worked only l day for Respondent
at a jobsite in Flint, Michigan.' At the request of Bunch,
Marsee returned to work for Great Lakes on April 7,
1969. Since. his return he has sent permit fees to
Respondent which it has retained, but it has not sent him
permits.
Bunch did not contact Wheeler following the March 10
incident. Wheeler, who learned of the incident when he
received copies of the charges filed by Lindsey and
Marsee, also did not contact Bunch about it. Later on
April 23, counsel for Respondent sent Great Lakes a
letter stating that Respondent did not then or in the past
object to the employment of Lindsey and Marsee although
it would not admit them to membership because of their
failure to pass the journeymen examination and their
refusal to become apprentices.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization or its agents to cause or
attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act or to
discriminate against an employee with respect to whom
membership in such organization has been denied or
terminated on some ground other than his failure to
tender periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly
required as a condition of acquiring or retaining
membership. Section 8(b)(1)(A) makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act. The complaint alleges that by
attempting to cause employees of other trades to stop
working on March 6 because Marsee and Lindsey lacked
membership in Respondent or work permits, by making
possession of permits a condition of continued
employment on March 10, and by causing Great Lakes to
discharge Lindsey and Marsee on March 10, Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A).
Respondent does not contend that its contract with
Great Lakes gave it the right to cause Respondent to
discharge Lindsey and Marsee for failure to become
members or obtain work permits. Similarly, although
Respondent asserts that it denied them permits and
These findings are based on the testimony of Holbert, Lindsey, and
Marsee , who testified uniformly as to the essential elements of this
incident Carlin , Vernier, and Calderon did not testify Although only
Holbert testified as to Carlin's initial remarks before the arrival of
Calderon and Vernier, it does not appear that these were witnessed by
Lindsey and Marsee , and I credit Holbert
'According to Lindsey, it was the day after he was laid off He believed
he received a call from Bunch asking him to work there the night he was
laid off
membership because it found them to be unqualified to
work as journeymen, Respondent does not contend that it
sought their discharge because of lack of qualification.
Rather Respondent denies that unlawful conduct occurred
or that it was responsible for what happened at the
jobsite Thus, with respect to the March 6 incident,
Respondent denies that Carlin sought to cause a work
stoppage, but contends that even if he did, he acted as an
individual and not as union steward. With respect to
March 10, Respondent denies responsibility for what
happened at the jobsite and contends that the actions of
Calderon and Vernier were purely personal acts not
attributable to Respondent.
Considering first the March 6 incident, the evidence
shows that Carlin first told job foreman Holbert that
Lindsey and Marsee were nonunion and should not be
working, and Holbert indicated his disposition to permit
them to continue to work. Carlin then informed the
stewards for other crafts on the job that Lindsey and
Marsee were nonunion , asked them if they would allow
their men to work with nonunion help, and suggested that
they go fishing or get sick. When the other stewards
finally returned to work, Carlin threatened that he would
file charges against Holbert for working with nonunion
help and that there would be no one on the job the next
day. I conclude that Carlin did not merely indicate and
advertise displeasure over the presence of Lindsey and
Marsee on the job, but attempted to induce the other
stewards to call the members of their crafts off the job for
the purpose of forcing Great Lakes to remove Marsee and
Lindsey from the job.
I cannot conclude on the evidence before me that
Carlin' s actions at this time are to be attributed to him as
an individual rather than as job steward. Unlike the
steward in Twin City Carpenters District Council, (August
Cedarstrand Company), 152 NLRB 887, on which
Respondent relies, Carlin did not simply exercise his
individual option to refuse to work on the job with
nonmembers and make his displeasure known to other
employees. He went to other stewards on the job, asked if
they would permit the members of their crafts to work
with nonunion help, and threatened a work stoppage when
his efforts to induce one failed. I conclude that Carlin's
actions on this occasion were taken in his capacity as job
steward.'
With respect to the March 10 incident, Respondent
stresses that Calderon and Vernier were mere members of
Respondent for whose conduct Respondent is not
responsible. Had Calderon and Vernier appeared alone at
the jobsite, this contention would be persuasive. But their
visit to the jobsite was preceded by the arrival of Carlin,
who once again asked to see the permits of Lindsey and
Marsee and said they should not be working on the job
when they could not produce them, suggesting that
Marsee go to the union hall and get his permit if he had
paid for it. After Marsee failed in his attempt to obtain a
permit, Carlin again returned to the job site and told
Holbert that he had better stop Marsee and Lindsey from
working. When Holbert asked why, Carlin told him that if
he did not, the two rodbusters coming over the hill,
referring to Calderon and Vernier, would stop them from
working. Although Carlin left the rest of the talking to
Calderon and Vernier, Carlin was not an innocent
bystander. By his remark to Holbert, he allied himself
with Vernier and Calderon and made it clear that their
'Building and Construction Trades Council of Tampa and Vicinity,
AFL-CIO, et al. (Tampa Sand and Material Co .), 132 NLRB 1564, 1568.
REINFORCING IRON WORKERS , LOCAL 426
visit to the jobsite was in furtherance of his efforts to get
Lindsey and Marsee off the job. Carlin did not merely
passively acquiesce to the conduct of Calderon and
Vernier; he was an active participant and expressly
conveyed his approval of their efforts to remove Lindsey
and Marsee from the job when his milder efforts failed.
In what followed Calderon and Vernier made it clear
that they would not tolerate the continued employment of
Lindsey and Marsee without permits. With scarcely veiled
threats they induced Lindsey and Marsee to leave their
jobs. Although the employment of Lindsey on another job
for I day on the day after he received notification of
discharge by Great Lakes leaves some doubt as to the
completeness of the separation of Marsee and Lindsey,
there can be little doubt that but for the actions of Carlin,
in conjunction with Calderon and Vernier, Marsee and
Lindsey would have continued to work at the
Maybury-Grand jobsite, and Great Lakes would not have
given them notice of discharge. I find that the conduct of
Carlin, in conjunction with Calderon and Vernier, made
possession of work permits a condition of continued
employment for Lindsey and Marsee at the
Maybury-Grand jobsite and caused Great Lakes to
discharge Lindsey and Marsee from that jobsite because
they were not members of Respondent and lacked work
permits. Thus I find that in his capacity as steward Carlin
engaged in the conduct alleged in the complaint. The
question remains whether Respondent is responsible for
his conduct.
As job steward Carlin' s duties included the checking of
union books and permits on the job, and enforcement of
the contract between Respondent and Great Lakes. Carlin
was Respondent's representative in dealing with the
foreman on the job, and under the contract between
Respondent at Great Lakes, Respondent undertook to
"remain responsible for the actions of the steward on the
job at all times." Among other provisions the contract
also contained a union security clause requiring employees
to become members of Respondent on the eighth day of
their employment. Thus unless Wheeler's conversation
with Bunch at the time of Lindsey's hire put Great Lakes
on notice that Carlin had no authority to seek the
discharges of Lindsey and Marsee, Carlin's actions were
within the scope of his apparent authority as job steward.
Respondent contends, however, that because Business
Manager Wheeler had told Superintendent Bunch that the
Union would not interfere with the employment of Marsee
and Lindsey, Great Lakes should not have attributed
Carlin's actions to Respondent without first contacting
Wheeler. I have found that at the time he refused Lindsey
a permit Wheeler told Bunch that because of
Respondent's problems with the NLRB, he could not stop
Lindsey from going to work. Wheeler's conversation with
Bunch preceded Carlin's efforts to secure the removal of
Lindsey and Marsee from the job by approximately 2
weeks. When Carlin thereafter on two occasions sought
the removal of Lindsey and Marsee from the job, Bunch
could have as easily concluded that Wheeler had changed
his position or had not been forthright in his earlier
conversation as that Carlin was acting contrary to express
instruction in his persistent efforts to get Lindsey and
Marsee off the job. I conclude that the onus was not on
Bunch to go to Wheeler before accepting Carlin's actions
at face value. Rather the burden was on Wheeler to take
steps promptly to disavow Carlin's conduct when it
became known to him.' Wheeler conceded that he became
aware of the matter within a few days after March 10
when he received copies of the charges filed by Lindsey
859
and Marsee. Even assuming that Wheeler had difficulty
learning the facts from Carlin, Calderon, and Vernier,
nothing prevented him from communicating promptly to
Great Lakes, Lindsey, and Marsee that Respondent did
not object to the employment of Lindsey and Marsee
because they lacked permits, did not seek to cause their
discharges from that reason, and would instruct its agents
not to do so. Wheeler did not do so, and insofar as the
record indicates, the first communication to this effect was
by letter to Great Lakes from Respondent's attorneys on
April 23, 1969, 6 weeks after the discharges of Lindsey
and Marsee. I conclude that Respondent did not act
promptly to disavow the conduct of Carlin, and that
Respondent was responsible for it.
As I have found that the conduct alleged in the
complaint occurred and that Respondent is responsible for
it, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by attempting to cause
employees in other trades to cease work because Lindsey
and Marsee were not members of Respondent and had no
permits, by making possession of work permits a
condition of employment for Lindsey and Marsee on the
Maybury-Grand jobsite, and by causing Great Lakes to
discharge Lindsey and Marsee from the Maybury-Grand
job.'
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the
employers described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
As I have found that Respondent caused Great Lakes
to discharge Samuel Lindsey and Kenneth Marsee because
they were not members of the Union and had no work
permits, I shall also recommend that it be ordered to
notify Great Lakes, in writing, with copies to Lindsey and
Marsee that it has no objection to the hiring of employees
by Great Lakes without regard to membership in or
holding of work permits from Respondent, except to the
extent that membership is lawfully required by an
agreement between Respondent and Great Lakes. I shall
further recommend that Respondent be ordered to make
Lindsey and Marsee whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
by payment to them of the amounts they normally would
have earned as wages from March 10, 1969 to the date 5
days after Respondent serves the written notices required
above, less net earnings , to which shall be added interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in accordance with the
formula set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90
'Cf Brunswick Corporation , 135 NLRB 574, enfd 318 F 2d 419
(C A 3)
'Local 49, affiliated with International Union of Operating Engineers,
129 NLRB 399; Southeastern Plate Glass Company, 129 NLRB 412
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138
NLRB 716.' While it appears that Bunch invited Lindsey
and Marsee to return work around April 7, insofar as the
record shows the effects of the unfair labor practices had
not been dissipated at that time, and Lindsey's refusal of
Bunch's offer was based on the fact that the charges were
unresolved. Subject to a further showing in the compliance
stages of this proceeding, I have concluded that
Respondent's notification and backpay obligations have
not been satisfied by its conduct following the discharges
of Lindsey and Marsee, except to the extent, of course,
that Marsee's earnings after his reemployment reduce
Respondent's backpay obligation. With respect to Marsee,
the evidence shows that following his reinstatement by
Great Lakes, he continued to send Respondent permit
fees, which were retained by Respondent although no
permits were issued. As the fees were tendered at a time
when Respondent's unfair labor practices had not been
remedied, I shall recommend that as part of the remedy
Respondent be ordered to reimburse Marsee for all fees
tendered since March 10, 1969
As it appears that a consent decree was entered in an
earlier case requiring Respondent to cease and desist from
similar conduct and adjudications in civil and criminal
contempt were entered pursuant thereto, I shall also
recommend that Respondent be ordered to refrain from
engaging in similar conduct with respect to the employees
of any employer.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Reinforcing Iron Workers , Local Union No. 426,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. Great Lakes Contracting of Detroit , Inc. is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause a work stoppage because
Great Lakes employed employees who were neither
members of Respondent nor possessed work permits from
Respondent , by making possession of work permits a
condition of continued employment for employees of
Great Lakes who were not members of Respondent, and
by causing Great Lakes to discharge employees because
they were not members of Respondent and lacked work
permits, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(I)(A) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby recommend that Respondent , Reinforcing
Iron Workers , Local Union No. 426, International
Association of Bridge, Structural , and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
'See Bricklayers Union No 4 of MLrsouri (Masonry Builders. Inc, et
at). 160 NLRB 1837.
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Great Lakes
Contracting of Detroit , Inc., or any other employer, to
discriminate against Samuel Lindsey, Kenneth Marsee or
any other employee for nonmembership in Reinforcing
Iron Workers , Local Union No. 426, International
Association of Bridge, Structural , and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, for reasons other than their failure
to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly
required as a condition of acquiring and retaining
membership in the Union.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Great Lakes
Contracting of Detroit , Inc., or any other employer, to
require Samuel Lindsey, Kenneth Marsee or any other
employee to obtain work permits from Respondent as a
condition of employment.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify Great Lakes Contracting of Detroit , Inc., in
writing, that it has no objection to the employment of
Samuel Lindsey and Kenneth Marsee, and furnish said
employees with copies of such notification.
(b) Make Samuel Lindsey and Kenneth Marsee whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in
the section of the Decision above entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Reimburse Kenneth Marsee for work permit fees
sent to Respondent after March 10, 1969.
(d) In the event that Samuel Lindsey or Kenneth
Marsee is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, notify them, in writing , that it has no
objection to their employment in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its offices and at all other places where it
customarily posts notices to its members copies of the
attached notice marked " Appendix A."10 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7 shall, after being signed by a representative of
the Respondent , be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
the Respondent customarily posts notices to its members
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 7,
signed copies of the said notice in sufficient number to be
posted by Great Lakes Contracting of Detroit, Inc., the
employer willing, in all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted.
(g) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within
"In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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 In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "posted by order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "posted
pursuant to a Judgment of The United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
REINFORCING IRON WORKERS , LOCAL 426 861
20 days from the date of this Trial Examiner's Decision, reinstatement of Samuel Lindsey and Kenneth Marsee
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by order of the National Labor Relations Board
an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Great Lakes
Contracting of Detroit, Inc. or any other employer to
discriminate against Samuel Lindsey, Kenneth Marsee,
or any other employee for nonmembership in
Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union No. 426,
International Association of Bridge, Structural, and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, for reasons other
than their failure to tender the periodic dues and
initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of
acquiring and retaining membership in the Union.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Great Lakes
Contracting of Detroit, Inc. or any other employer, to
require Samuel Lindsey, Kenneth Marsee or other
employee to obtain work permits from Respondent as a
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify Great Lakes Contracting of Detroit,
Inc., in writing, that we have no objection to the
and we shall furnish the said employees with copies of
such notification.
WE WILL make whole Samuel Lindsey and Kenneth
Marsee for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL reimburse Kenneth Marsee for work
permit fees he sent us after March 10, 1969.
Dated By
REINFORCING IRON
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION
No. 426, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL, AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
Note. We will notify Samuel Lindsey and Kenneth
Marsee, in writing, if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States that we have no objection to
their employment after their discharge from the Armed
Forces in accordance with the Selective Service and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, niay be directed to the Board's Office,
500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit,
Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.