Teamsters Local 186 (Associated General Contractors)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1232 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1232
313 NLRB No. 221
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 In sec. II,A of his decision, in the last sentence, the judge inad-
vertently refers to Local 186 as having violated Sec. 8(a)(1)(A) rath-
er than Sec. 8(b)(1)(A).
2 The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s failure to include a
make-whole provision in his recommended Order for the registrant
who would have been dispatched to the Fru-Con job absent the Re-
spondent’s unlawful conduct. The judge provided for make-whole re-
lief in his recommended remedy and notice. We shall modify the
judge’s recommended Order to correct this inadvertent omission.
The General Counsel also excepted to the judge’s failure to order
the Respondent to immediately return to the procedure for operating
its out-of-work list in effect before it began placing former business
agents at the top of the list, and to notify the Associated General
Contractors of California, Inc., in writing, that it had done so. We
find that requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from placing
former representatives and officers at the top of its out-of-work reg-
ister, together with the make-whole relief and notice posting, fully
remedies the 8(b)(2) violation. We find that, absent special cir-
cumstances, which are not alleged by the General Counsel, the addi-
tional remedy sought is not warranted.
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union No.
186, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO and Martin W. Fry and Associated
General Contractors of California, Inc. and
Teamsters Joint Council No. 42, Parties to the
Contract. Cases 31–CB–8837 and 31–CB–8838
May 17, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN
On September 8, 1993, Administrative Law Judge
George Christensen issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent filed an opposition to the
General Counsel’s exceptions, cross-exceptions, and a
brief in support of its position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union No. 186,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO,
Ventura, California, officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified.
Insert the following as paragraph 2(a) and reletter
the subsequent paragraphs.
‘‘(a) Make whole for his money losses and loss of
contributions to funds established by the relevant col-
lective-bargaining agreement the registrant who should
have been dispatched rather than J. T. Jones to the
Fru-Con job.’’
Ann Reid Cronin, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ralph W. Phillips, Esq. (Wohlner, Kaplon, Phillips, Vogel &
Young), of Encino, California, for Respondent Local 186.
Martin W. Fry, of Ventura, California, appearing on his own
behalf.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge. On
June 19, 1992, Martin W. Fry filed charges in Cases 31–CB–
8837 and 31–CB–8838 alleging Local 186 violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
On August 26, 1992, the Regional Director for Region 31
issued a complaint consolidating the two cases for purposes
of hearing and decision.
On March 30, 1993, the General Counsel moved and I
granted her motion to amend the complaint to add a new
paragraph 6(a) and a new paragraph 9(c).
In her posthearing brief, the General Counsel moved to
amend paragraph 12 of the complaint to allege the conduct
described in paragraph 9 of the complaint, for the reasons set
out in paragraph 10, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
as well as Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. Local 186 opposed my
grant of the paragraph 12 amendment.
I conducted a hearing at Ventura, California, to try the
issues raised by the complaint on March 30 and 31 and June
1, 1993.
The complaint alleged Local 186 violated Section 8(b)(2)
of the Act by registering Local 186 Business
Agent/Dispatcher R. T. Jones at the top of the out-of-work
list for construction industry jobs maintained by Local 186
pursuant to an exclusive hiring hall job referral system estab-
lished by a collective-bargaining agreement between the As-
sociated General Contractors of California, Inc. (AGC) and
Teamsters Joint Council No. 42 on behalf of Local 186, and
dispatching Jones to a job by virtue of that placement, fol-
lowing the termination of Jones’ employment as a Local 186
business agent/dispatcher.
The complaint also alleged Local 186 violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening to physically remove
Charging Party Fry from any jobsite where he appeared be-
cause of his intraunion activities.
Local 186 admitted the placement of Jones at the top of
the out-of-work list following his termination and his subse-
quent dispatch due to that placement, but alleged it was es-
tablished past practice to so treat terminated business rep-
resentatives, that Jones was dispatched to the job in question
for legitimate purposes, i.e., to police the collective-bargain-
ing agreement, that Fry is estopped from asserting the place-
ment and dispatch as an unfair labor practice, inasmuch as
he benefited from a similar practice in the past, and therefore
its action vis-a-vis Jones did not violate Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act.
With respect to the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act, Local 186 denies it threatened Fry, denies any
action it took with respect to Fry was taken because of his
1233TEAMSTERS LOCAL 186 (ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS)
1 While every apparent or nonapparent conflict in the evidence has
not been specifically resolved below, my findings are based on my
examination of the entire record, my observation of the witnesses’
demeanor while testifying, and my evaluation of the reliability of
their testimony; therefore any testimony in the record which is in-
consistent with my findings is discredited.
2 I find at all pertinent times Ramirez and Barnett were agents of
Local 186 acting on its behalf within the meaning of Sec. 2 of the
Act.
3 I find at all material times Shaw was an agent of Local 186 act-
ing on its behalf within the meaning of Sec. 2 of the Act.
intraunion activities, and therefore denies it violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The issues created by the foregoing are whether:
1. The General Counsel’s motion to amend paragraph 12
of the complaint should be granted.
2. Local 186’s placement of Jones at the top of its out-
of-work list and his subsequent dispatch due to that place-
ment violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act (and Sec.
8(b)(1)(A), assuming arguendo the General Counsel’s motion
to amend par. 12 of the complaint is granted).
3. Local 186 threatened to physically remove Fry from any
jobsite where he appeared because of his intraunion activities
and thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The General Counsel and Local 186 appeared by counsel
and Fry appeared on his own behalf at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine and
cross-examine witnesses, argue, and file briefs. The General
Counsel and Local 186 filed briefs.
Based on my review of the entire record, observation of
the witnesses, perusal of the briefs, and research, I enter the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleged, the answer thereto admitted, and I
find at all pertinent times AGC and its member/employers
were employers engaged in commerce and in business affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act
and Teamsters Joint Council 42 and Local 186 were labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged 8(b)(2) Violation
The complaint alleged, the answer thereto admitted, and I
find:
1. Teamsters Joint Council No. 42, on behalf of Local 186
and other affiliated local unions, negotiated and executed a
collective-bargaining agreement with AGC, the Building In-
dustry Association of Southern California, Inc. and the
Southern California Contractors Association, Inc., acting on
behalf of their member/employers, for a term extending from
July 1, 1988, through June 15, 1992.
2. That agreement contained provisions requiring the
member/employers of the three associations performing con-
struction work in southern California, including Ventura
County, to secure employees to man their jobs or projects
within the work and territorial jurisdiction of the various
local unions affiliated with the Joint Council through exclu-
sive hiring halls operated by those local unions.
3. The agreement also required each local union to estab-
lish and maintain open and nondiscriminatory out-of-work
registration lists for employees who desired employment on
construction work within the territorial jurisdiction of the
local union and to respond to employer requests for construc-
tion workmen by dispatching qualified workmen in a non-
discriminatory manner, i.e., by dispatching qualified work-
men, in the date order of their registration, who were willing
to accept the dispatch.
4. When Local 186 terminated the employment of Busi-
ness Agent/Dispatcher R. T. Jones on January 6, 1992, Local
186 registered Jones’ name at the top of the construction
workers’ out-of-work list for job referrals, placing him ahead
of all prior registrants for dispatch purposes.
5. By virtue of that placement, Local 186 dispatched R.
T. Jones rather than prior registrants to a job with Fru-Con
Construction Corp., a construction contractor in Ventura
County, southern California, and a member/employer of
AGC subject to the aforesaid agreement.
Jones’ name was placed at the top of the out-of-work list
by Junior Ramirez, Local 186’s office manager, at his re-
quest and with the acquiescence of Jones’ successor as Local
186’s business agent/dispatcher, Lyle Barnett.2
Jones placed his name at the top of the list in the past,
as well, when he was Local 186’s business agent/dispatcher
and feared imminent layoff (which did not transpire), though
at another time he placed his name at the bottom of the list
and worked up to the top, again while he was Local 186’s
business agent/dispatcher. Other business agents, however,
registered at the bottom of the list in the past, following their
layoff or termination as Local 186 business agents.
Another local union affiliated with the Joint Council al-
ways followed the practice of registering former business
agents at the bottom of its out-of-work lists in operating its
hiring hall pursuant to the terms of the AGC-Joint Council
agreement.
I find none of the foregoing establish a ‘‘past practice’’ of
placing former business agents at the top of the out-of-work
lists upon the cessation of their employment as business
agents.
Nor does the record support a finding Barnett dispatched
Jones to the Fru-Con job to act as Local 186’s job steward.
Barnett’s notes concerning the dispatch make no mention of
such an appointment or assignment, Local 186 Secretary-
Treasurer Dennis Shaw3 posted notices at the premises of all
employers who hired personnel through Local 186’s hiring
hall to the effect Jones was not authorized to act in any ca-
pacity on behalf of Local 186, and Jones emphatically denied
Barnett dispatched him to the Fru-Con job for that purpose
(I credit that denial).
I reject Local 186’s contention the Board is estopped from
finding a violation by virtue of its registration and dispatch
of Jones because Fry allegedly benefited by similar treat-
ment.
The Board administers public policy, and its orders and
remedies are triggered by charges filed by any person who
believes a public policy embodied in the Act has been vio-
lated. The fact the person who filed such charges may have
benefited by virtue of a similar violation is irrelevant. In any
event, Local 186 failed to demonstrate Fry was accorded
preferential treatment in registering on an out-of-work list
1234 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 Plumbers Local 521 (Huntington Plumbing), 301 NLRB 27
(1991); Pattern Makers Assn. of Detroit (Michigan Pattern Mfrs.
Assn.), 233 NLRB 430 (1977), enfd. 622 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1980).
5 NLRB v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 811 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1988),
enfg. 274 NLRB 1341 (1985); AMC Air Conditioning Co., 232
NLRB 283, 286 (1977), plus cases cited at fn. 11; Plumbers Local
521 (Huntington Plumbing), supra.
6 Offshore Crane was not engaged in the construction business and
did not hire employees through the referral procedures of the Local
186 hiring hall for construction employees.
7 During those visits, Fry and Jones openly stated the reasons for
their visits, including delivering copies of the proposed bylaw
change to at least one job steward.
8 Local 186, however, failed to establish by the testimony of any
manager, employee, or job steward that Fry’s visits to the jobsites
caused any unrest and Fry’s testimony he only talked to employees
who were off duty and none raised any objection to his presence and
actions was uncontradicted and is credited.
following the termination of his employment by Local 186,
nor did Local 186 pursue that argument in its brief.
Employee discrimination occurs when a labor organization
operating an exclusive hiring hall pursuant to a collective-
bargaining agreement favors one prospective employee over
another for dispatch, contrary to nondiscriminatory contrac-
tual requirements.
Such discrimination violates Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, in-
asmuch as it causes the employer to whom the favored reg-
istrant is dispatched for employment to discriminate against
the registrant who should have been dispatched by virtue of
his placement on the out-of-work list.
I therefore find and conclude by failing to operate a non-
discriminatory hiring hall satisfying the requirement of the
AGC-Joint Council agreement by giving preferential treat-
ment to former Business Agent/Dispatcher Jones in register-
ing Jones at the head of its out-of-work list and dispatching
him ahead of registrants who registered prior to Jones’ reg-
istration, Local 186 violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.4
I grant the General Counsel’s motion to amend paragraph
12 of the complaint to allege the Local 186 conduct just de-
scribed violated both Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
The complaint fully set forth the Local 186 conduct I have
found violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint. Local 186 had an opportunity to and did fully liti-
gate the issue of whether Local 186 committed the alleged
conduct. Local 186 thus neither was denied due process nor
prejudiced in attempting to refute the allegation that alleged
conduct violated the Act.
That conduct also constitutes a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Under these circumstances, I find and conclude by that
conduct, Local 186 violated Section 8(a)(1)(A) as well as
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.5
B. The Alleged 8(b)(1)(A) Violation
Prior to 1992, Martin Fry was a Local 186 business rep-
resentative, vice president, president, and secretary-treasurer.
In early 1992, he was a Local 186 member registered on
Local 186’s out-of-work list governing dispatches to employ-
ers in the construction industry who were subject to the non-
discriminatory exclusive hiring hall provisions of the AGC-
Joint Council agreement.
Prior to the regular April 1992 Local 186 membership
meeting, Fry visited several jobsites, accompanied by R. T.
Jones, for the dual purpose of seeing if employment was
available and to solicit support for a proposed Local 186
bylaw change proposed by another member. The proposed
bylaw change would require Local 186’s job stewards be
elected by employees represented by Local 186 at each job-
site rather than appointed by Local 186’s secretary-treasurer.
The two visited, among others, the premises of Offshore
Crane. No Local 186 job steward, nor any employee, nor any
manager, voiced any objection to their visits.
A vote on the proposed amendment was conducted at the
April 1992 meeting. A majority voted against the change.
Fry continued to visit jobsites following the April 1992
Local 186 membership meeting. In the course of those visits
(as well as the visits prior to the April 1992 meeting), Fry
let it be known he was thinking of running against the in-
cumbent Local 186 secretary-treasurer at the next election of
officers (scheduled for October of 1993). Again no job stew-
ard, employee, or manager voiced any objection to his visits.
The May 1992 membership meeting was scheduled for
May 14, 1992. The day prior to the meeting, Fry and Jones
visited the premises of Offshore Crane, discussed employ-
ment, and its owner offered Fry a job starting May 21, 1992.
Fry accepted and worked 4 days on the job.6
Prior to the May 14, 1992, Local 186 membership meet-
ing, Secretary Treasurer Shaw and Local 186 Business
Agent/Dispatcher Barnett were aware of Jones’ and Fry’s ac-
tivities, including their solicitation of support for the bylaw
change and Fry’s spreading word of his intention to run
against Shaw at the next election, through their receipt of re-
ports of the Fry and Jones visits to various jobsites.7
On May 14, 1992, prior to the scheduled Local 186 mem-
bership meeting, Fry telephoned the Local 186 office and
spoke to the office manager, Junior Ramirez. He asked why
Local 186 dispatched John Laws, whose name was below his
on the construction out-of-work list, to a job. Ramirez ex-
plained the job in question was to drive a low-boy, which
Fry was not qualified to perform. Fry accepted the expla-
nation.
At the May 14, 1992 meeting, member Stan Holloway
asked why Laws had been dispatched, since Holloway was
higher on the out-of-work construction list. Business
Agent/Dispatcher Barnett responded by stating Fry raised
that question earlier and he would review the question with
Holloway, but outside of Fry’s presence. Barnett went on to
state Fry had been visiting jobsites, Local 186’s members
and the employers didn’t want Fry coming there and causing
unrest,8 and if Fry continued his visits, he would be phys-
ically removed.
Fry asked what authority Barnett had to take that action.
Barnett repeated his statement Fry would be physically re-
moved from any jobsite if he appeared there.
Shaw, who was chairing the meeting, stated he was au-
thorizing Barnett to accomplish Fry’s removal from any
jobsites where he appeared.
For many years the Board has ruled efforts by a union
member/employee to attempt to change current policies of
the union which represents him or to politically oppose an
incumbent officer of that union are the exercise of rights
1235TEAMSTERS LOCAL 186 (ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS)
9 The right to refrain from supporting union policies and/or offi-
cials and to oppose those policies and/or officials.
10 The right to assemble freely with other member/employees and
to express any views, arguments, or opinions, including views con-
cerning union policies and internal union politics.
11 Teamsters Local 823 (Roadway Express), 108 NLRB 874
(1954); Operating Engineers Local 138 (A. Cestone Co.), 118 NLRB
669 (1957); Carpenters Local 22 (Graziano Construction), 195
NLRB 1 (1972); Teamsters Local 705 (Associated Transport), 209
NLRB 292 (1974); Laborers Local 282 (Alberici-Fruin Colnon), 226
NLRB 1315 (1976); Iron Workers Local 433 (Associated General
Contractors), 228 NLRB 1420 (1977), affd. 600 F.2d 770 (1979),
cert. denied 445 U.S. 915 (1980); Steelworkers Local 2687
(Shenango, Inc.), 237 NLRB 1355 (1978); Teamsters Local 745
(Transcon Lines), 240 NLRB 537 (1979); Steelworkers Local 1397
(U.S. Steel), 240 NLRB 848 (1979); Boilermakers Local 5 (Regor
Construction Co.), 249 NLRB 840 (1980); Highway Drivers Local
600 (Commercial Lovelace), 250 NLRB 1127 (1980); Laborers
Local 496 (Newport News), 258 NLRB 1105 (1981); Teamsters
Local 745 (East Texas Motor Freight), 262 NLRB 868 (1982); Boil-
ermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube Co.), 267 NLRB 1056 (1983);
Auto Workers Local 594 (General Motors Corp.), 272 NLRB 705
(1984), affd. 776 F.2d 1310 (6th Cir. 1985); Iron Workers Local 601
(Papco, Inc.), 276 NLRB 1273 (1985); Machinists Local Lodge 707
(United Technologies), 276 NLRB 985 (1985); Laborers Local 158
(Contractors of Pennsylvania), 280 NLRB 1100 (1986); Communica-
tions Workers Local 9431 (Pacific Bell), 304 NLRB 446 (1991).
12 See the cases recited in the preceding footnote.
13 See Iron Workers Local 373 (Building Contractors), 295 NLRB
648 (1985).
14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act9 and provisions of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
(LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 401, etc.) enunciating employee
rights.10
So reasoning, the Board has ruled any union interference
with, restraint, or coercion of a union member/employee for
exercising those rights violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act,
including threats of violence for such exercise.11
Fry was exercising rights under Section 7 of the Act and
the LMRDA when he visited jobsites to solicit support for
a change in Local 186’s bylaws and promoted his candidacy
for secretary-treasurer of Local 186.
Barnett and Shaw were aware of those activities prior to
the May 14, 1992 Local 186 membership meeting and that
awareness prompted Barnett’s May 14, 1992 threat to cause
Fry’s physical removal from any jobsites where he thereafter
appeared and Shaw’s authorization and approval for
Barnett’s carrying out that threat.
That threat and approval constituted Local 186 interference
with and restraint, and coercion of Fry for exercising the
rights enumerated above and thereby violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all pertinent times AGC and its member/employers
were employers engaged in commerce in business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act.
2. At all pertinent times Teamsters Joint Council 42 and
Teamsters Local 186 were labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 of the Act.
3. Local 186 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act by placing former Business Agent/Dispatcher J. T. Jones
at the head of the Local 186’s construction out-of-work list
following the termination of his employment as a Local 186
business agent/dispatcher and, by virtue of that placement on
the list, by dispatching Jones to a job at Fru-Con Construc-
tion Company rather than the member who would have been
dispatched to that job but for Jones’ preferential treatment.
4. Local 186 interfered with, restrained, and coerced Mar-
tin Fry’s exercise of his rights under Section 7 of the Act
and the LMRDA by threatening to cause his physical re-
moval from any jobsite at which he appeared after May 14,
1992, because of his earlier appearances at jobsites and en-
gagement in those activities.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affected and affect
interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2 of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found Local 186 engaged in unfair labor practices,
I recommend Local 186 be directed to cease and desist there-
from and to take affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.
Having found Local 186 threatened Martin Fry with phys-
ical retaliation for exercising his rights under Section 7 of the
Act and the LMRDA, I recommend Local 186 be directed
to cease and desist from making such threats and assure Fry
and all other members of Local 186 they will not suffer any
retaliation for seeking support for changes in existing Local
186 policies and practices or for announcing an intention to
run against incumbent officers or representatives of Local
186 or for similar and related conduct.
Having found Local 186 unlawfully placed a former busi-
ness agent/dispatcher at the head of Local 186’s register for
out-of-work registrants in construction and as a result of such
registration unlawfully dispatched that business
agent/dispatcher to a job to which an earlier registrant should
have been dispatched, I recommend Local 186 be directed to
make whole the registrant who should have been dispatched
to that job by payment to that registrant of the sum of money
that registrant would have earned had he been dispatched to
that job, less his net earnings for the period he would have
worked at that job, with his backpay and interest thereon
computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest computed in the manner
set out in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), plus contributions and credits to the funds established
by the agreement between AGC and Teamsters Joint Council
42 for the hours he would have worked but for the discrimi-
nation practiced against him.13
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record in this case, I recommend the
issuance of the following14
ORDER
The Respondent, Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local
Union No. 186, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO, Ventura, California, its officers, agents, and rep-
resentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
1236 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
15 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
(a) Threatening member/employees with physical retalia-
tion for attempting to change existing Local 186 policies and
practices and expressing political opposition to an incumbent
Local 186 officer or representative.
(b) Placing former representatives and officers of Local
186 at the top of Local 186’s out-of-work register for em-
ployment in construction and as a consequence dispatching
such former representatives and officers to jobs rather than
earlier registrants on the register.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing member/employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act and the LMRDA and caus-
ing employers to discriminate against member/employees by
discriminatory operation of its hiring hall.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Advise Martin Fry in writing no retaliation shall be
taken against him for visiting jobsites or other locations to
seek the support of other member/employees in securing
changes in existing Local 186 policies and practices and to
support his political campaign against Local 186’s incumbent
secretary-treasurer.
(b) Post at its facilities in the counties where it has juris-
diction, at all locations where notices to its members are cus-
tomarily posted, and at all locations where its members are
employed (subject to employer concurrence), copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’15 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
upon receipt thereof, shall be immediately signed and posted
by a duly authorized representative and maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members and employees rep-
resented by Local 186 are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to ensure the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES 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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with physical retaliation for
visiting jobsites or other locations to express to other
member/employees opposition to current policies and prac-
tices of Local 186, or to seek support for changes therein,
or to express opposition to incumbent Local 186 officers and
representatives, or to seek support for the election of their re-
placements.
WE WILL NOT place former business agents or other offi-
cers or representatives of Local 186 at the top of our register
for out-of-work members and employees in construction and,
as a result, dispatch such agents or officers or representatives
to jobs before other registrants who registered prior to such
placement.
WE WILL NOT otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce
you for exercising your rights under Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and the Bill of Rights of the
Labor-Management Reporting & Disclosure Act of 1959 to:
Refrain from supporting and/or opposing policies and
practices of Local 186;
Refrain from politically supporting and/or opposing in-
cumbent officers and representatives of Local 186.
WE WILL advise Martin Fry, in writing, that we will not
threaten him with physical retaliation or physically retaliate
against him for visiting jobsites or other locations to solicit
other member/employees to support changes in Local 186’s
policies and practices or to support his campaign for the of-
fice of secretary-treasurer.
WE WILL make whole for his money losses and loss of
contributions to funds established by the agreement between
Associated General Contractors of California and Teamsters
Joint Council No. 42, the registrant who should have been
dispatched rather than J. T. Jones, following Jones’ registra-
tion at the top of the construction out-of-work list following
the termination of his employment by Local 186 and Jones’
subsequent dispatch by virtue of that placement.
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 186, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL–CIO