Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 426,Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 21, 1970180 N.L.R.B. 856 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation