SW Regional Council of Carpenters, Local 1507 (Perry Olsen Drywall, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 22, 2011

27-CB-005723 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 22, 2011)

JD(SF)-36-11
Sandy, Utah
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS,
CARPENTERS LOCAL #1507 (PERRY OLSEN DRYWALL, INC.)
and Case 27–CB–5723
GERALD CORNELL, an Individual
Kristyn A. Myers and Karla E. Sanchez, Esqs., of Denver, Colorado,
for the General Counsel.
Daniel M. Shanley, Esq., DeCarlo, Connor & Shanley, of
Los Angeles, California, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lana H. Parke, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Salt Lake City, Utah,
on June 21 and 22, 2011.1 The charge was filed on December 20 by Gerald Cornell (Cornell), an
individual. The amended complaint, issued May 25, 2011, alleged that Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters, Carpenters Local #1507 (Respondent or the Union) violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.2
I. ISSUES
(A) Did Respondent violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing to register
Cornell for referral to work.
(B) Did Respondent violate Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by attempting to
cause and causing Perry Olsen Drywall, Inc. to discharge Cornell and by refusing
to refer Cornell for employment by Perry Olsen Drywall, Inc. at its Huntsman
project.

1 All dates are in 2010, unless otherwise indicated.
2 At the hearing the General Counsel amended the amended complaint as follows:
(1) Appended subpar. (c) to par. 4, adding the name of Jim Sala with the designation of senior
representative; (2) added par. 9, “By engaging in the conduct described above in paragraph 6 in
connection with its representative status as described above in paragraph 5, Respondent has
failed to represent Gerald Cornell for reasons that are unfair, arbitrary, invidious, and has
breached the fiduciary duty it owes to said employee and the Unit”; and (3) appropriately
renumbered complaint paragraphs.
JD(SF)-36-11
2
II. JURISDICTION
Perry Olsen Drywall (the Employer or Perry Olsen), a Utah corporation, with an office
and place of business located in Sandy, Utah, has been engaged as a stud and drywall
commercial contractor in various states, including the State of Utah. During the 2010 calendar
year ending December 31, the Employer, in the course of its business operations, performed
services valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of Utah. At all material time,
the Employer has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, and Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Unless otherwise explained, findings of fact herein are based on party admissions,
stipulations, and uncontroverted testimony regarding events occurring during the period of time
relevant to these proceedings. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of
the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I
find the following events occurred in the circumstances described below during the period
relevant to these proceedings.
A. Respondent’s Hiring Hall
The Employer was owned and operated by Perry Brian Olsen (Olsen), as sole owner, for 2
years.3 The Employer performed work on construction sites in the Rocky Mountain region, mainly
in Utah, employing, among other classifications, carpenters and finishers. In 2010, the Employer
performed work at the Portneuf Hospital in Pocatello, Idaho (the Portneuf project), employing
carpenters represented by the Northwest Carpenters Union Local 635 (Local 635) located in Boise,
Idaho, with which the Employer had a project-specific labor contract. In the summer of 2010, the
Employer also commenced carpentry work on a project in Salt Lake City, Utah: the Huntsman
Cancer Institute (the Huntsman project).
Respondent maintained an office and hiring hall in West Jordan, Utah, in the Salt Lake
Valley (the hiring hall). The following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their
respective names and have been agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Jim Sala (Sala)4 Senior Representative
Bruce Bachman (Bachman)5 Union Special Agent
Keith Brown (Brown) Union Special Agent

3 Prior to that, the Employer was co-owned by Olsen, his siblings, and his father. In February
2011, the Employer declared bankruptcy.
4 Sala supervised and managed Respondent’s employees, exercised authority in enforcing
hiring hall rules, negotiated collective-bargaining agreements, and processed grievances. Sala
was an agent of Respondent, as contemplated in Sec. 2(13) of the Act.
5 The parties stipulated that the name of the individual referred to in the complaint and in much of the
transcript as “Buchanan” was in fact “Bachman.” Herein, I refer to that individual as Bachman.
JD(SF)-36-11
3
For about the last 7 years, the Union and Perry Olsen were parties to the Southern California
Drywall/Lathing Master Agreement (the agreement), which covered all Perry Olsen’s employees
employed to perform work covered thereunder (the unit or carpenters). By the terms of the
agreement, Respondent was the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit, and
Respondent and Perry Olsen have maintained and enforced the terms of the agreement covering
conditions of employment of the unit.
Provisions of the agreement, of which Olsen was fully aware,6 required the Union to be the
exclusive source of referrals of unit employees for employment with Perry Olsen, as follows:
Contractors shall first call upon [Respondent] for such workers as they may from time to time
need and [Respondent] shall furnish to the Contractors the required number of competent
persons of the classifications needed by the Contractors.
Operation of the hiring hall was governed by the following established referral work rules for
Utah (referral rules), as set forth in pertinent part, a copy of which has been posted at the hiring hall
since the fall of 20087:
1.) The Southwest Regional Council will make available a non-exclusive and non-
discriminatory referral list for those individuals seeking work in the Construction
Industry.
2.) Applicants are allowed to solicit jobs from employers provided the employer is
signatory and bound to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Regional Council,
in Utah.
3.) Eligibility for referral starts with applicants’ personal request for their name to be
placed numerically on the out-of-work list. (First come, first served.)
4.) To be eligible for referral, applicants must:
A. Meet the minimum training and experience qualifications necessary
to perform any specific work assignments required by that specific
out-of-work list.
B. Be unemployed and available for work at all times.
 Anyone working as a carpenter for any employer in state, or
out, is subject to immediate removal from the list.
C. Be currently registered on the out-of-work list.
D. Pay their current dues or quarterly service fees.8
 Members must be in good standing to be eligible for and/or to
remain on the referral list.

6 By letter dated January 22, 2009, the Union, upon learning the Employer was employing
carpenters who had not been dispatched from the hiring hall, informed the company that the
employees needed either to become members in good standing or pay the necessary fees to
register on the referral list as nonmembers.
7 The rules were posted in the foyer of the hiring hall and at the out-of-work sign-in counter.
8 The quarterly service fee was the amount of money charged to persons who were not union
members, the payment of which enabled them to sign the out-of-work list if otherwise qualified.
JD(SF)-36-11
4
 Non-members must timely pay their quarterly service fee to be
eligible for and/or to remain on the referral list.
B. Alleged Violations of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A)
By the summer of 2010, the Union was no longer accepting new members.9 At all
relevant times, applicants for registration on the hiring hall out-of-work list who were not already
members of the Union or another carpenter local could only register on the list as nonmembers
after paying the quarterly service fee of $135.10 Once registered on the out-of-work list,
individuals might solicit work directly from contractors signatory to the agreement. Employers
were permitted to request by name workers who were registered on the out-of-work list,
regardless of their positions on the list. In all situations, whether seeking employees by name or
by open request, signatory employers wanting to employ carpenters first had to contact the hiring
hall to request their dispatch before they could be hired.11 Requested employees would be
dispatched only if they were registered on the list; requests for workers not registered on the list
were not honored. As for unit employees working for a signatory contractor who had not
complied with the hiring hall rules, Respondent asked for their removal.
In November, on the dates noted below, the Employer transferred journeyman carpenters
from the Portneuf project in Pocatello to the Huntsman project in Salt Lake City. Among those
transferred were the following individuals (collectively the Idaho workers):
November 2—Ryan Thompson (Thompson), David Lirgg (Lirgg), and Chris Barton
(Barton).
November 15—Jeff Behnke (Behnke).
November 30—Mike Monk (Monk) and Mike Prince (Prince).
Before the Idaho workers began work at the Huntsman project, Olsen told them they needed to
go to the hiring hall and sign up. None did so.
On November 2 upon Barton’s recommendation, Perry Olsen, also hired Cornell who had
not previously worked for the Employer. Cornell was not at that time a member of any union
and had never been a member of Respondent.12 Olsen told Barton to have Cornell go the hiring

9 The General Counsel argues Respondent’s admissions refute testimony that the Union was
not accepting new members. Respondent’s March 2011 statement of position discloses that
Ryan Thompson was permitted to transfer his membership from Local 635 to the Union in
February 2011 and also states, “While Local 1507 does have a policy that permits applicants to
either become a member or pay a referral fee, applicants have opted to join the union rather than
pay a referral fee.” Neither the membership transfer nor recitation of the general policy rebuts
otherwise unrefuted evidence that during the relevant period, the Union was no longer accepting
new members.
10 Membership in Respondent, when available, required payment of $48 (3 months of dues) plus a
$300 initiation fee, for a total of $348.
11 See art. 4, sec. 2(c) of the agreement.
12 Cornell’s last union membership was in Local 635 out of Boise, Idaho, from about 2002 to 2009.
He dropped that membership when he moved to Utah.
JD(SF)-36-11
5
hall, pay his fee, and take a drug test before being hired. Cornell began working at the Huntsman
project on November 2 without having gone to the hiring hall.
Later in November, it was reported to the Union that some carpenters on Perry Olsen
projects in the Salt Lake City area had not been dispatched through the hiring hall. On
November 18, during an email exchange between Sala and Olsen, Sala requested a list of Perry
Olsen’s employees. In a responsive email, Olsen provided the list and told Sala he wanted to
keep five of the Idaho workers because he knew how they worked. Although the email did not
name the five employees, Olsen testified they were Thompson, Lirgg, Barton, Behnke, and
Joshua Smith. Sala replied:
First, employees who are working for you outside of our bargaining area (Idaho) are not
eligible for transfer to jobs in our jurisdiction . . . Second, they are not allowed to begin
work until they are dispatched. Third, if they are not on my Out Of Work list and
“eligible” for dispatch, they cannot be requested by name.
[I]f there are employees working without a dispatch, they are in violation of the contract
and the hiring hall procedures. If I get complaints from any member on the list currently
this could cause both of us a problem which we do not want.
Later on November 18, Olsen emailed the Union a work order and requested forms for
the dispatch of seven employees. In response, Sala informed Olsen that only three of the names
he submitted for dispatch were even eligible to sign the out-of-work list but those three could not
be dispatched as they had not signed the out-of-work list. Sala listed the names of seven of Perry
Olsen’s current employees who had not been dispatched from the hiring hall and were ineligible
to sign the out-of-work list or to be dispatched:13
Dave Powers Charlie James
Chris Mousley Nicholas Huston
Brian Knudsen Gerald Cornell14
Samuel Rios
Sala said that all seven needed to be removed from employment immediately.
Olsen did not terminate any of the seven-named employees at that time and did not notify
the Union that it had failed to do so. Except for Cornell, Olsen did not thereafter discuss the
seven-named employees with any union representative.15

13 Although Sala did not specifically state why the seven were ineligible, the fact that they were then
employed by Perry Olsen rendered them ineligible under the hiring hall rules.
14 There is no evidence as to what information the Union made about the other six
individuals, but the Union had ascertained that Cornell was not a member of any carpenter’s
union, in good standing or otherwise, that he had not paid the quarterly registration and dispatch
fee as a nonmember, that he had not signed the out-of-work list, and that he could not sign it
because he was working.
15 The General Counsel asserts that Respondent never (meaning, presumably, after November
18) required Perry Olsen to discharge the six employees aside from Cornell. There is no
JD(SF)-36-11
6
Olsen directed his foreman to have Thompson, Lirgg, Barton, Behnke, Monk, and Prince
leave the Huntsman job and go to the hiring hall to get things worked out with the Union before
they returned to work. On November 19, Cornell went to the hiring hall with Joshua Smith
(Smith), Arlin Francin (Francin),16 Barton, Lirgg, and Behnke.17
When the Perry Olsen employees arrived at the hiring hall on November 19, Brown and
Bachman were there.18 Cornell said the group was there “to do what we need to join the Union.”
Lirgg said the group wanted to put their names on the out-of-work list.
Bachman took Barton, Cornell, and Smith into a back area while Behnke, Francin, and
Lirgg stayed with Brown. Bachman told the workers they had gone about it the wrong way. He
said they should have gone to the hiring hall first [before working for Perry Olsen], put their
names on the out-of-work list, and waited for the Union to call them. Cornell told Bachman he
wanted to do whatever was necessary to join the Union, saying he had the necessary funds.
Bachman told the Perry Olsen employees they had to take care of membership with their home
locals because the Union was not taking any new members. Bachman told the group that
workers seeking work had to first sign the out-of-work list at the bottom and that jobs were
dispatched on a first-come-first-serve basis. Without specifying how, Bachman told Cornell he
might be able to help him a week or so later.19 Cornell told Bachman that he needed to get in the
Union and would like to know what he needed to do to accomplish that.20 Bachman said there
was nothing he could do for him at that time.
Barton, Cornell, and Smith rejoined the others at the hiring hall counter where Brown
looked up the status of each on the computer. After checking status, Brown informed the
workers as follows:
Lirgg—Brown said Lirgg was current in his dues and dispatched him to Perry Olsen.21

evidence, however, that Respondent knew the six continued to be employed, and on December 1,
as described later, Sala told Olsen that all undispatched workers had to be removed.
16 Smith and Francin worked for Perry Olsen for short periods in November and do not figure
significantly in this matter.
17 Thompson arrived at the hiring hall as the group was leaving.
18 Both Cornell and Barton testified regarding the November 19 meeting at the hiring hall. In this, as
in later interchanges, I found Barton’s recall to be clearer and more inherently congruous than Cornell’s;
Barton’s accounts are generally credited.
19 Cornell testified that at some point, Bachman said he did not think it was right to dispatch the
workers, and as far as he was concerned, they could all go home and have a nice weekend. Barton did not
corroborate this testimony; as the testimony is incongruent with Bachman’s other credited statements, I
do not accept it.
20 I cannot infer from Barton’s testimony that Cornell asked to sign the out-of-work list as a
nonmember. Counsel for the General Counsel questioned Barton as follows:
Q: . . . did Cornell ask to get on the out of work list?
A: He asked to join and get on—or what he had to do to work.
The most reasonable inference is that Cornell asked to join the Union, linking his request with his
immediate desire for work.
21It is unexplained why Lirgg’s dispatch slip to Perry Olsen was dated November 30.
JD(SF)-36-11
7
Barton—Brown said Barton was delinquent in his dues. Barton offered to pay the dues
immediately. Brown told Barton to pay in Idaho.
Cornell—Brown said Cornell had been dropped from membership in Local 635 in Boise,
Idaho.22
After the workers left the hiring hall, Barton telephoned Olsen and told him the Union
would not dispatch anyone but Lirgg and would not permit Cornell to join the Union.23 Cornell
and the others returned to the Huntsman project where they continued to work.
After hearing Barton’s report, Olsen telephoned Brown for an explanation, saying he
wanted to request Cornell for dispatch as well as the Idaho workers. Brown said that Cornell
was not in standing to work for Perry Olsen, that the company could not employ him, and that
Olsen had to let him go. Perry Olsen did not comply with the Union’s direction, and Cornell
continued working.
On November 22, Cornell returned to the hiring hall alone to see what he could do about
getting in the Union. He realized he “was getting lumped together with a bunch of people from
the 635 that [he] was no longer affiliated with . . . [he did not] live in Idaho. So [he] was hoping
that [he] could work something out.” Bachman was the only union representative present.
Cornell asked Bachman what he could do to take care of the problem so that he could get
into the Union.24 Bachman told Cornell it was illegal for him to solicit work from union
companies without first going through the Union. Bachman told Cornell, “I can’t do anything.
You need to [resolve your problems] in your home local.” Cornell offered Bachman money “for
his pocket,” which Bachman declined. In each of Cornell’s first two visits to the hiring hall, the
only requests he made of Brown and Bachman were that they let him join the Union. In each
instance he was refused. Cornell returned to work at the Huntsman project.
On November 29, representatives from the Union came to the Huntsman project. The
Perry Olson foreman told the undispatched workers to hide, which they did on a roof top for
about half an hour.

22 Cornell told Brown he wanted to join the Union. Brown said he had to deal with Bachman.
Cornell testified that if he had known he would be eligible for dispatch as a union member if he got back
in good standing with Local 635, he would immediately have done so. However Cornell also adamantly
denied he was “behind” on his dues to Local 635, stating, “I haven’t been a member of 635 for over two
years . . . I took myself out of that union.” This latter testimony shows no intention or desire to gain
membership status through Local 635. Although Barton gave conclusionary testimony that Cornell was
not allowed to get on the out-of-work list, I infer from the testimony as a whole that Cornell’s sole
expressed wish on November 19 was to obtain membership in Respondent and that he did not, on that
date, ask to sign the out-of-work list as a nonmember.
23 Barton’s testimony differs somewhat from Olsen’s recollection. Although neither testimony was
received for the truth of what happened in the hiring hall, I found Barton’s recall to be clearer and more
specific, and I credit his account of what he told Olsen.
24 Bachman apparently understood that Cornell wanted to sign the out-of-work list and receive a
dispatch to Perry Olsen, as Bachman told Cornell there were 50 guys on the out-of-work list, and he did
not think it was right for Cornell to cut in front of everybody else on the list.
JD(SF)-36-11
8
On November 30, Sala and Olsen exchanged the following emails:
Sala to Olsen
Subject: Contract/hiring hall grievance25
Brian, Obviously you and [Brown] have had a difficult time over the last three weeks
communicating and getting this issue resolved. I am not one for long emails or extending
the problems we are having regarding the contract and dispatch. While I tried to
accommodate a few “key” individuals after many folks were hired without proper
dispatch.26
Let me try to clear this up. Except for the few key individuals who have already
been processed, NO one else who is working there in violation will be processed or
dispatched. They are in violation of our contract, the hiring hall procedures, and our own
internal Constitution and Bylaws. If there are still folks who are in violation working
tomorrow I will file the second step of the grievance since we have not been able to work
this out in the first step.
If you need to meet, I will make myself available this afternoon at my office.
Olsen to Sala
Subject: Contract/hiring hall grievance
Looks like our emails just crossed.
I’m still trying to figure out the people that are currently approved as per previous
communication. As per your [previous] email, I let the apprentice go and kept the other 4
employees working. I think it would be good to meet . . . if you could review the
dispatches I sent in for the people from Idaho, I know they were late except for two of the
men, and determine which employees I can keep employed and then we can go over that
plus any additional information that [Brown] has from his Huntsman site visit yesterday.
On December 1, Sala met with Olsen.27 Sala reviewed the dispatch procedures with
Olsen, who wanted to know why the undispatched employees couldn’t stay working. Sala told
Olsen they were basically having a grievance meeting on how to resolve a grievance against the
company for not following the hiring hall dispatch rules. Sala said the company’s actions
created a problem for individuals registered on the list who had solicited jobs from Perry Olsen
but whom the company had not requested while, at the same time, the company hired
undispatched workers. Sala told Olsen that all employees had to be properly dispatched and that
the Union could not just pretend the breach of rules had not happened; there needed to be a
resolution. Sala told Olsen that all undispatched employees had to be removed from the project,
and the openings had to be filled through the hiring hall unless the hall ran out of eligible out-of-
work list signers, which was unlikely as 75–80 names were on the list.

25 No written grievance had been filed. The Union considered the matter to be an oral grievance.
26 The reference to “key” individuals was to union-permitted employee transfers from another jobsite,
generally into supervisory positions.
27 There is little significant dispute as to what was said in the December 1 meeting. The following
account is based primarily on the testimony of Sala, whom I found to be clear and coherent and to
demonstrate good recall.
JD(SF)-36-11
9
Olsen complained the company was far behind on the project, and he needed good
people. Sala asked Olsen which workers he really wanted dispatched. Olsen gave Sala the
following names: Thompson, Lirgg, Barton, and Benke, which, in resolution of the grievance,
Sala agreed to. Sala agreed the company could retain Monk and Prince as well.28 Sala told
Olsen that if the workers came to the hiring hall and got properly registered for dispatch, the
Union would dispatch them. Cornell was not discussed. Following the meeting Sala believed
that all employees on the Huntsman jobsite who had not been properly dispatched had been
removed from the job.29 Olsen thereafter contacted Barton and instructed him to go to the hiring
hall where, Barton understood, “they would dispatch us.”
Following Olsen’s instructions, on December 1, Barton returned to the hiring hall along
with Cornell, Behnke, Monk, and Prince. It was Cornell’s third visit. Brown and Bachman were
there, and Barton told Brown the group was there to be dispatched. The workers told Brown
they were not working.30 Behnke, Barton, Monk, and Prince signed the out-of-work list, noting
the local union of which they were members.31 Brown then dispatched Behnke, Barton, Monk,
Prince, and Thompson to the Huntsman project.32 Brown did not dispatch Cornell, and Cornell
asked why. As Barton recalled, Cornell told Brown he wanted to join the Union, and Brown told
him he had to talk to Bachman.33
Cornell approached Bachman and said he wanted to join the Union and that he had
whatever it was going to cost with him. Bachman told Cornell that he could not help him, that
the Union was not accepting new members, and that Cornell needed to get his dues taken care of.
Bachman told Cornell that if he paid the nonmember quarterly fee of $135, he would sign him up
on the out-of-work list, but he would be at the bottom of the list, and the Union could not put him
on the Huntsman job. As Cornell produced his money, he asked Bachman how the Union

28 I infer from the testimony as a whole that Olsen at some point also specifically requested Monk and
Prince.
29 Sala testified that he did not know if the workers he had agreed to dispatch were working for Perry
Olsen at that time, but as they could not be dispatched if they were employed, Sala presumed the
employees, if working, would be terminated before they registered at the hall.
30 I credit Brown’s testimony that the group denied they were employed. His testimony is consistent
with evidence that the Union consistently held to its requirement that only unemployed individuals could
sign the hiring hall list and that the company had, 2 days earlier, tried to hide undispatched workers from
the Union’s inspection, justifying an inference that workers knew they would not be eligible for dispatch
if employed.
31 Sala understood the four employees and Thompson had taken steps to put themselves in good
standing with their home local unions. Thompson apparently inadvertently neglected to sign the out-of-
work list.
32 The Union dispatched Thompson, Barton, Behnke, Monk, and Prince on December 1 to begin
work at the Huntsman project on December 2.
33 Cornell testified that Brown said it was his understanding that Cornell was no longer employed by
Perry Olsen, and Cornell said that was news to him. This asserted exchange is inconsistent with other
credited testimony, and I do not accept it.
JD(SF)-36-11
10
got around right-to-work laws since Utah was a right-to-work state.34 Bachman abruptly
returned to his office area. Cornell followed him, saying he was not trying to make him mad.
Cornell tried to shake hands with Bachman, but Bachman refused. Cornell did not sign the out-
of-work list.
When Cornell returned home from his December 1 visit to the hiring hall, a telephone
message from Olsen informed him that he was laid off. 35
Sometime later, Cornell telephoned Olsen and asked if he could return to work. Olsen
told Cornell that if he could work it out with the hiring hall, then Perry Olsen would hire him.
Cornell told Olsen the Union would not let him sign the out-of-work list. Olsen did not request
Cornell by name, assertedly because he knew Cornell was not on the out-of-work list.
Thereafter Cornell left telephone messages for union representatives, but no one returned
his calls. In January after the instant charge had been filed, Cornell spoke to Bachman. Cornell
asked if anything had changed and if Bachman could help him get in the Union. Bachman said
he still had nothing for Cornell.36
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Overview
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a
labor organization “to restrain or coerce . . . employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.” The proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(A) states that the
Section “shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with
respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.”
Section 8(b)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union “To cause or attempt
to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection
(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 failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership.”

34 This conversation between Cornell and Bachman is based on an amalgamation of the
credible testimony of Cornell, Barton, and Bachman. Although Cornell testified that when he
counted out $135 to pay the Union, Bachman declined to take it, saying he “just couldn’t do it.”
Barton did not recall that exchange. Since I have found Barton to be more clear and reliable in
his testimony than Cornell, I discredit Cornell’s account in that regard. Bachman testified that
when he offered Cornell the option of paying the nonmember quarterly fee, Cornell refused to
pay it, saying that according to right to work, he did not have to. As Bachman’s testimony in this
regard differs from Barton’s credible testimony, I do not accept it.
35 Employment records show that Cornell did not work on or after December 1.
36 Bachman recalled that Cornell said, “I know that Perry Olsen is hiring, and I want to join the
Union.” Bachman referred Cornell to the Union’s attorney.
JD(SF)-36-11
11
Union-operated exclusive hiring halls are permissible employment systems when
lawfully memorialized in collective-bargaining agreements. Teamsters Local 357 v. NLRB, 365
U.S. 667 (1961). In operating hiring halls, unions must follow clear and unambiguous standards
set out in a collective-bargaining agreement.
A union that operates a hiring hall must represent all individuals seeking to utilize that
hall in a fair and impartial manner. In this regard, the Board has held that notwithstanding the
absence of specific discriminatory intent, “any departure from established exclusive hiring hall
procedures which results in a denial of employment to an applicant . . . inherently encourages
union membership, breaches the duty of fair representation owed to all hiring hall users, and
violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2)” absent demonstration of a legitimate justification. Cell-
Crete Corp., 288 NLRB 262, 264 (1988). Operating Engineers Local 150 (Chiado), 352 NLRB
360, 360 (2008); Steamfitters Local Union No. 342, (Contra Costa Electric), 336 NLRB 549,
552 (2001), enfd. 325 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The Board’s reasoning is that “such departures
encourage union membership by signaling the union’s power to affect the livelihoods of all
hiring hall users, and thus restrain and coerce applicants in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.”
Plumbers Local Union No. 342, supra at 550.
Specifically, a union operating an exclusive hiring hall may not discriminate with
respect to registration and referrals on the basis of membership or nonmembership in the
union or any other arbitrary, invidious, or irrelevant considerations. Electrical Workers Local
No. 3 (White Plains), 331 NLRB 1498 (2000); Sachs Electric Co., 248 NLRB 669, 670
(1980).
When the General Council proves that a union has departed from established hiring hall
procedures, a violation is established unless the union comes forward with rebuttal evidence that
the departure was justified based on a valid union-security clause or is necessary to the effective
performance of the union’s representative function. Plumbers Local Union No. 342 (Contra
Costa Electric), supra at 553 fn. 10; Operating Engineers Local 150 (Chiado), supra at 376. In
determining whether a union has established its necessity defense, the Board looks to whether
the union’s conduct was arbitrary. Stage Employees IATSE (Lucas), 332 NLRB 1, 4 (2000).
Finally, a union’s inadvertent mistake in operating a hiring hall arising from mere negligence
does not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2), independent of the duty of fair representation.
Plumbers Local Union No. 342, supra at 550.
The Board and the Courts accord unions a wide range of discretion in serving the
employees whom they represent. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 631,
(Vosburg Equipment, Inc.), 340 NLRB 881, 881 (2003). “A wide range of reasonableness must
be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always
to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.” Ford Motor Co.
v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953). “Thus it is not every act of disparate treatment or
negligent conduct which is proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A), but only those which, because
motivated by hostile, invidious, irrelevant, or unfair considerations, may be characterized as
‘arbitrary conduct.’ [Footnotes omitted.]” Steelworkers Local Union No. 2869 (Kaiser Steel
Corp.), 239 NLRB 982, 982 (1978). As the Board has noted, “The descriptive terms used to
describe breaches of the duty—’arbitrary,’ ‘invidious,’ ‘discriminatory,’ ‘hostile,’
JD(SF)-36-11
12
‘unreasonable,’ ‘capricious,’ ‘irrelevant or unfair considerations,’ without ‘honesty of
purpose’—indicate deliberate conduct that is intended to harm or disadvantage hiring hall
applicants. They all imply that the union is either using its power to control [employment]
referrals against the interests of individual applicants or classes of applicants, or that it may do so
at any time, at its discretion.” Steamfitters Local 342 (Contra Costa Electric), supra at 550–553.
B. Positions of the Parties
There is no dispute that the Union’s hiring hall was appropriately established as a
permissible and legitimate employment system. There is also no contention the Union
acted contrary to the Act in declining to increase its membership rolls. The issues focus
on whether the Union’s conduct toward Cornell breached its obligations under the Act.
The General Counsel contends that since November 19, Respondent has
independently violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by repeatedly failing and refusing to
register Cornell on its out-of-work list for referral to carpenter jobs generally. The
General Counsel also contends that on December 1, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2)
and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by requesting Perry Olsen to discharge Cornell, thereby
attempting to cause and causing Cornell’s discharge because Cornell was not a member
of any carpenter union, and by thereafter failing and refusing to refer Cornell for
employment with Perry Olsen. The General Counsel advances three legal theories:
1. Respondent’s refusal to register Cornell on December 1 and in mid-January was a
departure from its established hiring hall procedure;
2. Respondent’s refusal to register Cornell on all four occasions was discriminatory
because Respondent treated Cornell differently than other similarly situated
applicants; and
3. Respondent’s refusal to register Cornell was based on discriminatory and arbitrary
considerations and, therefore, breached its duty of fair representation.
Respondent argues that it lawfully caused Cornell’s termination from the
Huntsman project because Cornell was working in violation of the hiring hall rules and
that it thereafter did not refer Cornell to the project because he remained ineligible for
referral. As to allegations that Respondent treated Cornell differently than other similarly
situated applicants, Respondent contends that it believed the individuals it dispatched to
Perry Olsen in December were eligible for referral at the time of their dispatch.
C. Alleged Independent Violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
Perry Olsen understood its contractual obligation to employ only workers properly
dispatched from the hiring hall, an obligation of which the Union had reminded the company in
2009. Nevertheless, during November the company employed on its Huntsman project a number
of workers who had not been dispatched properly. The group included at least 13 workers, six of
whom had been transferred from the company’s Idaho jobsite [Thompson, Lirgg, Barton, Monk,
Prince, and Benke] and seven of whom, including Cornell, had not.
JD(SF)-36-11
13
In mid-November, the Union discovered undispatched workers on the Huntsman jobsite.
By email of November 18, Sala told Olsen the undispatched Idaho workers were not eligible for
transfer, no workers could work unless they were dispatched, and if workers were not listed on
the out-of-work list and eligible for dispatch, they could not be requested by name. Later that
same day, Sala emailed to Olsen the names of seven of Perry Olsen’s current employees who had
not been dispatched from the hiring hall and were ineligible to sign the out-of-work list or to be
dispatched. One was Cornell. Sala directed Olsen to immediately remove the seven from
employment. Perry Olsen did not remove the employees. There is no evidence the Union was
aware of the company’s noncompliance.
Thereafter, on November 19 and 22, and December 1, Perry Olsen employees visited the
hiring hall with the aim of resolving employment impediments. Their interactions with union
representatives, Brown and Bachman, are in pertinent part as follows:
November 19: Although Lirgg told Brown and Bachman the group wanted to sign the
out-of-work list, Cornell told them he and the other employees wanted to “join the Union.”
Cornell told Bachman that he wanted to do whatever was necessary to join the Union and, later,
that he needed to get in the Union and wanted to know how to do that. The union representatives
determined that Lirgg was current in his dues and dispatched him to Perry Olsen; the
representatives told Barton he was delinquent in his dues to his home local, Local 635, and told
Cornell he had been dropped from membership in his former local, Local 635. There is no
evidence Cornell sought to sign the out-of work list as a nonmember. Thereafter, Cornell
continued to work for Perry Olsen.
November 22: Cornell asked Bachman what he could do to get into the Union. Bachman
told him to resolve his problems with Local 635. There is no evidence Cornell sought to sign the
out-of work list as a nonmember.
On December 1, the Union and Olsen met to resolve the Union’s grievance over Perry
Olsen’s failure to abide by its contractual hiring hall obligations. The Union demanded that
Perry Olsen remove all undispatched workers from the jobsite. Olsen urged his need for good
workers to meet jobsite time commitments, specifically requesting Thompson, Lirgg (who had
already been dispatched), Barton, Benke, Monk, and Prince. The Union agreed to dispatch the
workers if they properly registered.37
December 1: Cornell, Barton, Benke, Thompson, Monk, and Prince returned to the
hiring hall. They informed Brown they were not working. Barton, Benke, Thompson, Monk,
and Prince, having attained good standing with Local 635, were dispatched to the Huntsman
project. Cornell again sought to join the Union. He was again told the Union was not accepting
new members. Bachman told Cornell that if he paid the $135 nonmember quarterly fee of $135,
he could sign the out-of-work list at the bottom, but he could not be dispatched to the Huntsman
job. As Cornell produced the necessary money, he asked how the Union got around Utah’s
right-to-work laws. Bachman, in apparent umbrage, did not accept the proffered money and
refused to speak further to Cornell, who did not sign the out-of-work list.

37 The unstated but inferentially clear corollary was that Olsen would remove all
undispatched workers from the job.
JD(SF)-36-11
14
It is true that under the hiring hall rules, if Cornell had not been currently working, he
could have registered on the out-of-work list upon paying to the Union the nonmember quarterly
service fees. However, from November 2 until sometime shortly after his December 1
interaction with Bachman at the hiring hall, Cornell was, in fact, employed by Perry Olson and
thereby ineligible to sign the list.38 Moreover, until December 1, Cornell did not seek to register
on the out-of-work list either as a member of a sister local, which membership he did not
apparently wish to possess, or as a fee-paying nonmember. Rather, until December 1, Cornell
repeatedly requested membership in the Union, which he apparently viewed as a prerequisite to
dispatch to the Huntsman job. His requests for membership were lawfully denied.
The General Counsel argues that while Cornell may have framed his requests in terms of
“joining” the Union, he was really seeking to register on the out-of-work list in any possible
manner, which goal, though unarticulated, the Union should have understood. The record as a
whole does not justify such an inference. Rather, the record supports a finding that the Union
reasonably believed Cornell wanted membership in the Union. A more penetrating consideration
of Cornell’s requests might have resulted in the Union’s comprehending that Cornell really
wanted to be apprised of any route whereby he could be dispatched to the Huntsman job along
with the Idaho workers. In the absence of any evidence of deliberate or disingenuous
obtuseness, the union officials who responded to Cornell can only be accused of
misunderstanding his essential objective. In that, they were possibly negligent. However,
mistakes in exclusive hiring hall operation arising from “mere negligence” do not violate a
union’s duty of fair representation and do not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2).
Steamfitters Local 342 (Contra Costa Electric), supra.
The General Counsel also argues that the Union’s pre-December 1 response to
Cornell was discriminatory, as it treated him differently than other similarly situated
applicants, namely the Idaho workers who were referred to the Huntsman job. The Idaho
workers, however, were not similarly situated to Cornell. The Union had conceded their
dispatches to the Huntsman job at the specific request of Olsen and in resolution of the
Union’s grievance against Perry Olsen. Olsen did not request Cornell. “Unions are
accorded a wide range of discretion in serving the employees whom they represent” even
where a heightened duty of fair representation is assumed to exist in the context of an
exclusive hiring hall. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 631,
Affiliated With Teamsters (Vosburg Equipment, Inc. and Bechtel Nevada, Inc.), 340
NLRB 881, 881 (2003). There is no evidence from which I can infer that the Union, by
resolving its grievance with Perry Olsen in the manner it did, engaged in “‘[A]rbitrary,’
‘invidious,’ ‘discriminatory,’ ‘hostile,’ ‘unreasonable,’ ‘capricious,’ ‘irrelevant or unfair
. . .’ deliberate conduct . . . intended to harm or disadvantage hiring hall applicants.”
Steamfitters Local Union No. 342 (Contra Costa Electric), supra at 551, quoting
Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 6, 493 U.S. 67, 89 (1989). Rather, the evidence
shows that the Union made certain concessions to Olsen in order to resolve a grievance
that might otherwise have caused expense to the Union and economic difficulty to a
struggling signatory company, both of which considerations fit within a union’s

38 The fact that the Union may have been unaware of his employment status does not make him
eligible.
JD(SF)-36-11
15
reasonable discretion. Accordingly, the Union’s failure to dispatch Cornell to the
Huntsman job and its demand that all undispatched workers be removed from that site do
not violate the Act.
On December 1, Cornell’s entreaty to the Union changed. On that day, he sought to pay
his nonmember fee and sign the out-of-work list. The Union, through Bachman, refused to let
him do so, for reasons unrelated to valid eligibility rules.39
When the General Counsel shows that a union has departed from established hiring hall
procedures, a violation is established unless the union comes forward with rebuttal evidence that
the departure was justified. Steamfitters Local 342 (Contra Costa Electric, Inc.), supra, citing
Operating Engineers Local 450, 267 NLRB 775, 795 (1983).40
The credible evidence establishes that on December 1, the Union refused to let
Cornell pay his nonmember fee and register on the hiring list because Cornell questioned
the Union’s obligations under Utah’s right to work provisions. In refusing to permit
Cornell to pay the nonmember fee because of his right to work question, the Union
departed from established hiring hall procedures. The Union must therefore show the
departure was justified. The Union has made no such showing.
In the absence of justification evidence, the Union’s refusal to let Cornell pay the
nonmember fee because of his right to work question was “‘[A]rbitrary,’ ‘invidious,’
‘discriminatory,’ ‘hostile,’ ‘unreasonable,’ ‘capricious,’ ‘irrelevant or unfair’ [and constituted]
deliberate conduct . . . intended to harm or disadvantage [Cornell, a potential] hiring hall
[applicant].” Steamfitters Local Union No. 342 (Contra Costa Electric, Inc.), supra at 551. As
such, the Union’s conduct violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Bachman’s refusal to let Cornell sign the out-of-work list—corollary to his refusal to
accept Cornell’s money—requires a different analysis. Refusal to permit Cornell to sign the list
certainly impacted Cornell’s employment opportunities. The refusal foreclosed his ability to
solicit work directly from contractors signatory to the agreement, including Perry Olsen.
Employers were permitted to request by name workers who were registered on the out-of-work
list, regardless of their positions on the list, and Olsen was assertedly willing to request Cornell
should he obtain registration. However, the Union’s refusal to register Cornell on December 1
cannot be said to have violated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act because Cornell was
not, at the time of the refusal, eligible to sign the out-of-work list since he was at that time
employed, and unemployment was a clear condition precedent to registration.

39 It is true that Cornell was ineligible to sign the out-of-work list at that time in any event
because he was then employed by Perry Olson. However, the Union was unaware of that fact,
and Bachman’s response, discussed hereafter, is coercive in violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) even if
the end result—refusal to permit Cornell to sign the out-of-work list—did not violate Sec.
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) because of Cornell’s ineligibility.
40 I also apply the analytical framework of Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
JD(SF)-36-11
16
Cornell’s employment status, which had been an insurmountable, albeit hidden, obstacle
to his registration during his December 1 visit to the hiring hall changed when Perry Olsen laid
him off later that same day. Based on subsequent events, it is reasonable to infer that the Union,
for arbitrary reasons, would have continued to adhere to its refusal to permit Cornell to pay the
nonmember fee and sign the list irrespective of his employment status.
Following his layoff, Cornell left telephone messages for union representatives that were
not returned. In January, Cornell managed to reach Bachman by telephone and asked if anything
had changed. Cornell also asked if Bachman could help him get in the Union. Although
Cornell’s question about getting in the Union is subject to the same analysis that applies to his
earlier membership requests, his query as to whether anything had changed must reasonably have
encompassed the Union’s December 1 refusal to let him pay the nonmember fees, which was
based entirely on arbitrary and unlawful considerations. Bachman’s response that he still had
nothing for Cornell was, therefore, a continuation of the Union’s arbitrarily based refusal to let
Cornell pay the nonmember fees. Bachman’s continuing refusal foreclosed for Cornell any
opportunity of signing the out-of-work list, even though he was, after December 1, otherwise
eligible. Bachman’s response also evidences the futility of Cornell’s further attempting to pay
the nonmember fee and sign the out-of-work list even as an unemployed nonmember. In those
circumstances, after December 1, when Cornell became unemployed, the Union violated Section
8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing to permit Cornell to pay the nonmember fees and to
sign the hiring hall out-of-work list.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Employer, Perry Olsen Drywall, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By refusing to permit Gerald Cornell to pay the nonmember hiring hall registration fee
on December 1 because Cornell questioned its hiring hall procedures, an arbitrary reason
unrelated to valid eligibility rules, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By refusing to permit Gerald Cornell to sign its out-of-work register after December 1,
2010 because Cornell questioned its hiring hall procedures, an arbitrary reason unrelated to valid
eligibility rules, Respondent has caused or attempted to cause employer discrimination within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and has therefore engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it must be
ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action.
It will be left to the compliance stage of this proceeding to determine whether Gerald
Cornell, had he been permitted to sign the Union’s out-of-work list after December 1, 2010,
would have been dispatched to the Huntsman jobsite or to other available jobsites. If at the
JD(SF)-36-11
17
compliance stage it is determined that Gerald Cornell would have obtained dispatch, Respondent
must make Gerald Cornell whole for its unlawful refusal to permit him to sign the Union’s out-
of-work list after December 1, 2010. Any backpay found owing shall be computed on a
quarterly basis from December 2, 2010, the date when Gerald Cornell would have been eligible
to sign the Union’s out-of-work list had he been permitted to pay the nonmembership fee, to the
date Gerald Cornell is placed in the position on the out-of-work list that he would have had had
he been permitted to sign the out-of-work list after December 1, 2010, less any net interim
earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended41
ORDER
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, Carpenters Local #1507, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to let Gerald Cornell pay the nonmember registration fee and sign its
exclusive hiring hall out-of-work list as a nonmember applicant for employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Maintain and operate its hiring hall and job referral system in a nondiscriminatory
manner.
(b) Forthwith notify Gerald Cornell that he may register on the hiring hall out-of-work
list as a nonmember upon his tendering the appropriate nonmember registration fee, placing his
name in the list position he would have attained had he been permitted to sign the list after
December 1, 2010, and thereafter permit Gerald Cornell to enjoy all benefits and privileges,
including referral rights, attendant upon his placement on the out-of-work list.
(c) Remove from its files and records any reference to the unlawful refusal to permit
Gerald Cornell to pay the nonmember registration fee and register on its hiring hall out-of-work
list and, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that it has done so and that it will not use
the unlawful refusal against him in anyway.
(d) If, at the compliance stage of this proceeding, it is determined that Gerald Cornell,
had he been permitted to sign the Union’s out-of-work list after December 1, 2010, would have
been dispatched to and employed at the Huntsman job or other available jobsites, make Gerald
Cornell whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful

41 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)-36-11
18
refusal to permit Gerald Cornell to sign the out-of-work list after December 1, 2010, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all hiring hall records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in West Jordan, Utah,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”42 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 27 after being signed by Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and
members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall
be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates by such means with its
member and nonmember hiring hall users. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of business or closed
the facility involved in these proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former members and out-of-work list signers
since December 2, 2010.
(g) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for posting by
Perry Olsen Drywall, Inc., if willing, at all places where notices to employees working at its Utah
jobsites are customarily posted.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated: September 22, 2011.
Lana H. Parke
Administrative Law Judge

42 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read
“POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse, for any arbitrary reason unrelated to our valid hiring hall eligibility
rules, to permit Gerald Cornell, or any other person, to pay the nonmember hiring hall
registration fee.
WE WILL NOT refuse to permit Gerald Cornell, or any other persons entitled to use our hiring
hall, to sign the hiring hall registration or out-of-work list upon compliance with our established,
nondiscriminatory referral procedures.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner breach our duty of fair representation for all our
members and other persons entitled to use our hiring hall.
WE WILL maintain and operate our hiring hall and job referral system in a nondiscriminatory
manner.
WE WILL notify Gerald Cornell that we will register him on our out-of-work list and refer him
for employment in the order in which he signs the out-of-work list and for those jobs for which
he is qualified.
WE WILL make whole Gerald Cornell, with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of our refusal to permit him to sign the hiring hall registration or out-of-work
list as a nonmember applicant for employment in violation of our established referral procedure.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files and
records any reference to the unlawful refusal to permit Gerald Cornell to register on our hiring
hall out-of-work list and, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that we have done so and
that we will not use the unlawful refusal against him in anyway.
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters,
Carpenters Local #1507
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
600 17th Street, 7th Floor, North Tower, Denver, CO 80202-5433
(303) 844-3551, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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 MAY BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (303) 844-6647.