TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 100, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHER

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Oct 24, 2019

09-CB-232458 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 24, 2019)

JD–82–19
Cincinnati, OH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFERS AND
HELPERS LOCAL UNION 100, a/w
THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS (Beta Productions LLC)
and Case No. 09-CB-232458
SAMUEL J. BUCALO, an Individual
Naima R. Clarke, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John R. Doll and Julie C. Ford, Esqs., (Doll, Jensen and Ford, Dayton, Ohio)
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried on August 26 and
27, 2019 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Samuel J. Bucalo filed the charge giving rise to this case on
December 10, 2018. The General Counsel issued the complaint on June 13, 2019.
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
promulgating on June 26, 2018 and since maintaining an illegal hiring hall referral system for the
motion picture industry. According to the General Counsel this system is illegal in classifying all
“retirees,” that is job applicants who are receiving a pension, other retirement benefits and/or social
security benefits in the lowest of 7 referral categories. Thus, these employees are referred to jobs
in the movie industry only after those applicants in the first 6 categories. The General Counsel
alleges that the classification of retirees in the lowest preference group was motivated by a desire
to discriminate against the Charging Party, Samuel Bucalo, in retaliation for his dissident activities.
The General Counsel further alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by
refusing to register the Charging Party Bucalo in the second highest group for referral due to his
union dissident activity.
The General Counsel also alleges that the hiring hall rules are illegal on their face because
they classify employees according to work in the “Teamster Movie Industry” and the number of
productions on which they have been performing “Teamsters work,” complaint paragraphs
6(a)(iii) and 8.
JD–82–19
2
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent Union, I make the
following
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Beta Productions is a limited liability company engaged in the production of nationally 10
distributed motion pictures. Beta has an office in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Respondent Union,
Teamsters Local 100, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The Union and Beta
Productions are parties to an agreement requiring that the Union be the exclusive source of
referrals for vehicle driving work for Beta and other film production companies in the
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Area, G.C. Exh. 20.15
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In July 2018 the same parties litigated case 09-CB-214166. On September 11, 2018,
Administrative Law Judge Andrew Gollin rendered a decision in that case which is currently 20
pending before the Board. I have adopted all of Judge Gollin’s relevant factual findings in the
current case.
Judge Gollin found that Respondent violated Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) in failing or
refusing to refer Samuel Bucalo for work with as a driver for the film Extremely Wicked with a 25
different production company in early 2018. The principal issue in the instant case is different,
i.e., whether the referral rules promulgated by the Union in June 2018, G.C Exh. 6, violate the
Act and whether Respondent violated the Act by placing Samuel Bucalo and possibly other
retirees in the least desirable referral category.
30
Charging Party Samuel Bucalo’s history with the Union
Samuel Bucalo became a member of the Union in March 1979, after he began working for
United Parcel Service (“UPS”). By 2010, Bucalo was earning about $60,000 a year at UPS. In
late 2010, Bucalo ran for and was elected Union Secretary-Treasurer. This was a full-time 35
position, with a three-year term, beginning January 1, 2011, at a salary of between $92,000-
$97,000 a year. Upon election to the Union position, Bucalo did not, as do many, or possibly all
other union officers, take a leave of absence from their employer. UPS employees represented by
the Teamsters are allowed by contract to return to work for UPS when their union position ends
without a loss of seniority or other benefits.40
Bucalo, however, attempted to continue working 1 day a week instead of seeking a leave
of absence. UPS would not agree to this, so Bucalo retired because he understood that UPS would

1 Tr. 385, line 7 should read 2017 rather than 2014.
JD–82–19
3
terminate him.2 Thus, in early January 2011, after he was elected, Bucalo retired from UPS and
thereafter began receiving pension benefits. At the time Bucalo was 51 years old. Bucalo receives
a pension from UPS of $2323 a month from which taxes and health insurance premiums are
deducted. I infer that this amount is based on his age and/or length of service with UPS. Although,
the record is not clear on this point, I infer that Bucalo received this pension in addition to his 5
$92,000-97,000 yearly salary as Secretary-Treasurer of the Union from 2011-2016.
In 2010, when Bucalo was elected Secretary-Treasurer, he was on a slate of candidates
with Butch Lewis, who ran for and was elected Union President. At some point during their terms,
Bucalo and Lewis had a falling out. During the 2013 internal Union elections, Bucalo again ran 10
for Secretary-Treasurer on a slate with David Webster, who ran against Lewis for Union President.
Bucalo and Webster both won their respective elections. Bucalo was re-elected to a second three-
year term as Secretary-Treasurer, beginning January 1, 2014. Webster was elected to a
corresponding three-year term.
15
About a year into their terms, Bucalo and Webster had a falling out. Bucalo also had issues
with others within the Union. He filed internal and external charges against the Union and certain
officers and agents. Some of those individuals filed charges against Bucalo. The merits (or lack
thereof) and eventual disposition of these charges are irrelevant to this proceeding.
20
In 2016, Bucalo was not selected to be a union delegate to go to the Teamsters national
convention. Later that year, Bucalo ran against Webster to be Union President. After a highly
contentious campaign, Bucalo lost to Webster. Following the election, Bucalo filed protests
regarding the election campaign, and he filed internal Union charges. Again, their merits (or lack
thereof) and their eventual dispositions are irrelevant to this proceeding. 25
After Bucalo left office at the end of December 2016, the Union deemed him to be a retired
member and treated him as a retiree. Bucalo disputes his retiree status. He filed an unfair labor
practice charge against the Union asserting that the Union is violating the Act by classifying him
as a retiree. The Region declined to issue a complaint based on this charge.30
In recent years, Bucalo has been a vocal opponent of several current and former Union
officers and agents. He has publicly criticized how they have managed the Union’s financial
affairs, negotiated collective-bargaining agreements, handled certain grievances and unfair labor
practice charges, and represented the membership as a whole. Bucalo was particularly critical of 35
Union President Webster and his slate of candidates during the 2016 Union election. Prior to,
during, and after the election, Bucalo published an unofficial newsletter and maintained a public
Facebook account which he used to voice his views and openly condemn Webster and several
other current Union officers. In at least one lengthy Facebook post made after he was voted out
of office, Bucalo lauded his performance and criticized Webster and his administration. Webster 40
saw and responded to the Facebook post by posting a “comment” rebuking Bucalo’s claims and
blaming him for causing the Union to waste more dues money “than any other member in the

2 Bucalo’s explanation of what happened with UPS is at Tr. 213-226. It appears that rather than take
a leave of absence, Bucalo planned to work 1 day a week and then repeatedly notify UPS 48 hours in
advance that he would be off work for union business. He conceded that, “I think it was something
unique that I was trying,” Tr. 218.
JD–82–19
4
history of the local” on attorney fees to defend against Bucalo’s “frivolous charges.” Bucalo also
filed internal and external charges against the Union and/or its officers, including with the Board,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Department of Labor.
Bucalo’s attacks did not go unanswered. Some of the individuals Bucalo criticized filed 5
internal charges against him. A summary of those charges and their statuses were published in the
official Union newsletter prior to the 2016 election. According to Bucalo, publicizing the statuses
of these charges against him was unprecedented.
On April 21, 2017, Bucalo sent the Union a letter requesting to be placed on, among others, 10
the film and television referral list. On around June 9, 2017, the Union added Bucalo’s name to
that referral list as a retiree. Thereafter, Bucalo notified the Union on a monthly basis that he was
interested in being referred out.
The Union’s Film and Television Referral System15
The Union operates multiple referral systems, including referral systems for construction,
pipeline work, and film and television. Only the film and television referral system is at issue in
this proceeding. The Union has a standard agreement that it enters into with each of the production
companies (usually for each individual project) covering unit employees. Article V of this 20
agreement, which is referred to as the Area Standard Agreement Low Budget Feature Basic Cable
Pilot or Series (“Area Standard Agreement”), states that:
(a) The parties hereto recognize the condition in this industry requires frequent
hiring of drivers on a daily non-continuing basis. For this purpose, the Union 25
shall maintain, for the convenience of the producer and the employee, a referral
service which shall in all respects comply with all applicable provisions of law.
(b) The producer agrees to request referrals for all drivers required for work
covered by the agreement, from the Union.30
The film and television work in the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area is sporadic but
lucrative. Very few films were made in this area between 2000 and 2014. Since 2014, there have
been many more films produced in the area than previously. In 2017, there were five movies
filmed: The Public (early 2017); Old Man & the Gun (Spring 2017); Strangers II (Spring 2017); 35
Donnybrook (October through November 2017); and Haunt (October through November 2017).
Since 2017, Teamster drivers worked on films such as Extremely Wicked (January-March 2018),
London Calling (June 2018), Point Blank (August 2018) and Dry Run (January 2019). The Union
referred Bucalo to work on Donnybrook, Point Blank and Dry Run. These projects typically last
a few weeks but require long hours, and the individuals can earn a significant amount of money in 40
a short period of time. Their fringe benefits and meal allowances are paid in cash and are added
to their paychecks.
The Union’s “transportation captain” oversees the film and television referral service. This
is an appointed position that reports to the Union President. The transportation captain coordinates 45
with the production companies to determine the number of drivers needed and any special skills
required for the project. He/she contacts the drivers who are on the referral list(s) to see who is
JD–82–19
5
available and interested in working on a film. He/she also makes the referrals and arranges the
work schedules for the drivers during production. The captain does not receive any compensation
from the Union for holding the position, but he/she is assigned to work on each project and Local
100 pays his or her union dues. In 2014, Union President David Webster appointed Craig Metzger
to be the Union’s film and television transportation captain. If more than one film is being 5
produced at the same time, there will be more than one transportation captain.
Bucalo’s Prior Unfair Labor Practice Charges Regarding the Referral System
Between May 18, 2017 and February 2, 2018, Bucalo filed 11 unfair labor practice charges 10
against the Union related to its referral services. Region 9 of the Board found merit to allegations
in two of those charges (Cases 09--CB--199111 and 09--CB--204497), as well as the allegations
in the present charge and the one litigated before Judge Gollin. According to the parties’
stipulations in Judge Gollin’s case, the specific allegations the Region found merit to in Cases 09-
-CB--199111 and 09--CB--204497 were that: (1) the Union operated a film and television referral 15
list without using written objective criteria in referring applicants for employment; (2) the Union
failed and refused to register Bucalo for employment on the Union’s film and television referral
list for arbitrary, discriminatory or invidious reasons; (3) the Union failed to keep adequate records
of the film and television referral lists; (4) the Union failed to provide Bucalo with access to the
film and television referral lists; and (5) the Union failed to provide Bucalo with a copy of the film 20
and television referral lists. On June 15, 2018, the Union and the Regional Director for Region 9,
on behalf of the General Counsel, entered into an informal Settlement Agreement to resolve these
particular allegations. The Settlement Agreement contains a non-admissions clause. Bucalo
declined to join, and later appealed the Settlement Agreement. His appeal was sustained in part
but was denied insofar as it is relevant to this proceeding on November 7, 2018. 25
As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Union agreed to “operate our exclusive hiring
hall for Film and TV work by using written, objective criteria and standards when making
referrals” and to “maintain records and rules of the operation of our referral system sufficient to
establish that the referral system is being operated based on objective criteria and standards” and 30
to post and make available written referral criteria for the referral service. Thereafter, on June 26,
2018, the Union promulgated the written referral procedures and rules for its film and television
referral service which are the subject of the instant proceeding. (G.C. Exh. 6).
The Union promulgates Movie Industry Referral Procedure and Rules35
Shortly after its settlement with the Region, the Union began drafting referral rules for
the movie industry. The principal individuals involved in the drafting were Union President
David Webster, Transportation Captain Craig Metzger and the Union’s outside legal counsel,
Julie Ford. Other union members were consulted in the process. At a meeting on December 14, 40
2017, Craig Metzger specifically brought Bucalo’s name up. Metzger stated that Bucalo had
called off of work on one occasion without explanation. Bucalo testified in this proceeding that
he was sick. Metzger testified he brought this up as a reason that absenteeism and tardiness had
to be addressed in the rules, Exh. R-8.
45
JD–82–19
6
The initial draft rules sent by Ford to Webster and Metzger around February 1, 2018,
placed job applicants in 6 categories, R. Exh. 9. Those who were receiving retirement benefits
from any source or social security benefits were placed in the lowest category, G.C. Exh. 3. This
placement scheme would have a greater impact on Charging Party Bucalo than most other
retirees because most union retirees are not interested in regular employment, Tr. 110-111.5
A later draft sent by Ford in about March 2018, placed retirees residing in the greater
Cincinnati Tri-State Area (parts of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky) in Group III of VI, R. Exhs. 11
and 12, G.C. Exh. 4. This gave such retirees a preferred status for film industry referrals relative
to applicants in Groups IV and V and VI. Those Groups are for applicants not residing in the 10
Greater Cincinnati area. According to Julie Ford, this change was based on comments made by 3
experienced drivers at a meeting occurring between December 2017 and April 2018.
The final version of the rules put retirees living in the Tri-State Area in a new Group VII,
the lowest and least desirable category, G.C. Exh. 6.3 Thus, retirees have lower priority than 15
non-retirees from outside the Greater Cincinnati area. Julie Ford testified that this change was
made pursuant to comments made by an unidentified Executive Board member or members at an
Executive Board meeting on April 25, 2018. Union counsel Julie Ford participated in the April
25, 2018 meeting by speaker phone and then only for part of the meeting.
20
According to Ford, the participants in the April 25 meeting took the position that
individuals living, for example, in the Cleveland or Columbus area, who were not receiving a
pension should have preference over retirees living in the Greater Cincinnati area, Tr. 437-39.
Ford testified that this unnamed individual or individuals, also opined that putting retirees in the
lowest referral category was consistent with the Union’s referral policy for the film industry at 25
least since 2014.4 All members of the Executive Board were on the slate of officers headed by
David Webster in 2016 who ran against Bucalo. There is no evidence of what other
deliberations by the Executive Board led to the reversion back to the original concept.
All drafts contained language proving that each applicant be placed in the highest priority 30
group for which he or she qualified. The final rules were approved by the Executive Board and
implemented on June 26, 2018, G.C. Exh. 2. The Union required each interested recipient of the
new rules to submit an application and a resume. Sarah McFarland, the Local’s administrative
assistant, placed the applicants in the various groups. She placed Bucalo in group 7.
35
The introductory language to Local 100’s referral procedure and rules state in pertinent
part:
1. The Union shall refer applicants for employment and apply these procedures and
rules without discrimination against such applicants by reason of membership or non-40
membership in the Union, and such referral shall not be affected in any way by rules,

3 The Rules do not mention retirees living outside the of the Greater Cincinnati area. This appears to
be inadvertent.
4 Respondent has not established that it had an established past practice of referring retirees to film
industry jobs only after exhausting efforts to find other drivers. The only example given, from 2000,
occurred under very different circumstances.
JD–82–19
7
regulations, bylaws, constitutional provisions or any other aspect or obligation of
Union membership policies or requirements.
The final 7 groups are as follows:
5
Group I
All applicants for employment who have four (4) or more years of experience in
the Movie Industry, who are residents of the geographical area constituting the
normal Movie Industry labor market in the Greater Cincinnati /Tri -State area and10
who have been employed performing Teamster work in the Movie Industry on at
least six productions in the past four (4) years in the geographical jurisdiction of
the Union. The Tri -State area shall be defined to include: Adams, Brown, Butler,
Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, Highland, Pike, Scioto and Warren Counties in
Ohio; Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky; and Dearborn,15
Franklin, Ohio, Ripley and Switzerland Counties in Indiana.
Group II
All applicants for employment, who have two (2) or more years of experience in
the Teamsters Movie Industry, are residents of the geographical area constituting20
the normal Movie Industry labor market in the greater Cincinnati /Tri -State area
and who have been employed performing Teamster work in the Movie Industry
on at least three productions in the past two (2) years in the geographical
jurisdiction of the Union.
25
Group III
All applicants for employment who have not worked in the Teamster Movie
Industry trade, who are residents of the geographical area constituting the normal
Movie Industry labor market in the greater Cincinnati /Tri -State area and who
have a valid Class A CDL?30
Group IV
All applicants for employment who have four (4) or more years of experience in
the Teamsters Movie Industry trade, who have been employed performing
Teamster work in the Movie Industry on at least six productions in the past four35
(4) years, who have a valid Class A CDL and who are not residents of the
geographical area constituting the normal Movie Industry labor market in the
greater Cincinnati /Tri -State area.
Group V40
All applicants for employment who have worked in the Teamster Movie Industry
trade for more than one (1) year, who have a valid Class A CDL and who are not
residents of the geographical area constituting the normal Movie Industry labor
market in the greater Cincinnati /Tri -State area.
45
JD–82–19
8
Group VI
All applicants for employment who have not worked in the Teamster Movie
Industry trade, who are not residents of the geographical area constituting the
normal Movie Industry labor market in the greater Cincinnati /Tri -State area and
who have a valid Class A CDL?5
Group VII
All applicants for employment, whether or not they have worked in the Teamster
Movie Industry, who are residents of the geographical area constituting the
normal Movie Industry labor market in the greater Cincinnati /Tri -State area, who10
have a valid Class A CDL and who are receiving pension or retirement benefits
from any source or Social Security retirement benefits.
ANALYSIS
15
Respondent violated the Act in placing retirees in the lowest preference category for referral for
film work
Respondent Union owes a duty of fair representation to its members. A union’s duty of
fair representation applies to all union activity. A union may not treat a unit employee in a 20
manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967);
Steelworkers v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362 (1992); Air Line Pilots Assn. v. O’Neil, 499 U.S. 65
(1991). A Union, such as Respondent, which operates an exclusive hiring hall violates Section
8(b)(1)(A) and possibly 8(b)(2) if it discriminates against employees for dissident union
activities, such as running against the incumbent officers, Development Consultants, 300 NLRB 25
479 (1990), Chauffeurs Union Local 923, Teamsters, 172 NLRB 2137 (1968), Laborers Local
158 (Contractors of Pennsylvania) 280 NLRB 1100 (1986).5
When a union interferes with an employee’s employment status for reasons other than
failure to pay dues, initiation fees, or other uniformly required fees, a rebuttable presumption 30
arises that the interference is intended to encourage union membership in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Once the General Counsel establishes union interference with a member’s
employment status, the union bears the burden of establishing the such interference was made
pursuant to a valid hiring-hall provision, or that its conduct was necessary for effective
performance of its representational function, IATSE Local 151 (SMG and the Freeman Cos., 35
d/b/a Freeman Decorating Services), 364 NLRB No. 89, slip opinion at p. 2 (2016).
Putting aside the Union’s animus towards Samuel Bucalo, a policy placing retirees in the
lowest referral category would not be illegal. The Union has a valid reason for giving
preference to drivers who have no income over those receiving a pension or social security 40
benefits.
However, this case involves the issue of motivation., i.e., whether Local 100’s decision to
do this was the product of its animus towards Samuel Bucalo for his dissident union activities.

5 If the hiring hall is not an exclusive hiring hall, such discrimination only violates Section 8(b)(1)(A),
but not 8(b)(2).
JD–82–19
9
As in cases against an employer-respondent under Section 8(a)(3) and (1), to establish a violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) the General Counsel must make an initial showing that Local
100 either put retirees in the lowest category or placed Bucalo into that category due to his
dissent union activity, SSA Pacific Inc., 366 NLRB No.51 (slip op. at 1) (2018); Teamsters
Union No. 200, 357 NLRB 1844, 1852 (2011) affd. 723 F. 3d 778 (7th Cir. 2013). The General 5
Counsel has satisfied his initial burden by establishing that Samuel Bucalo engaged in dissident
union activity, that the Union knew of that activity, had animus towards that activity and that
Bucalo suffered an adverse action [being placed in the lowest referral group].
Once that showing is made, the Union must show that would not put retirees and/or 10
Bucalo in the lowest referral category in the absence of an unlawful motive, CNN America, Inc.,
361 NLRB 439, 458-59 (2014) (enfd. in relevant part, 865 F. 3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2017) and cases
cited therein. The appropriate test for such discrimination generally is set forth in Wright Line,
251 NLRB 1083 (1980) enfd. on other grounds, 662 F. 2d 889 (1st Cir. 1981) cert. denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).15
Respondent does not meet its burden by simply showing that it had a legitimate reason
for its action, it must persuasively show that it would have taken the same action in the absence
of the protected conduct. This is the decisive principle in this case. Local 100 clearly has a
legitimate reason for placing retirees in the lowest referral category. However, it has not shown 20
that absent its animus towards Bucalo, that it would have structured its referral preferences as it
did.
Respondent has not met its burden in this case. The record is replete with evidence from
which I infer animus towards Bucalo’s dissident activities. His name came up in the Union’s 25
discussions during the drafting of the referral policy for reasons not adequately explained.
Moreover, the Union was obligated to go through the rules promulgation process as the result of
a ULP charge filed by Bucalo. The Union has not adequately explained the change in the drafts
which in its last form placed retirees, including Bucalo in the lowest category.6 For example, no
witness who was present at the April 25 meeting testified to the deliberations resulting in the 30
change from the second draft to the third with regard to retirees.
Bucalo clearly falls within the plain meaning of the applicants described in Group II,
being a local resident, with 2 years’ experience in the film industry, who has worked on at least 3
films within the two years prior to June 2018. It is irrelevant that other retirees, who have not 35
engaged in dissident activity are also disadvantaged by being placed in Group 7. Being in
receipt of a full pension, this classification is not be as important to these individuals as it is to
Bucalo. Moreover, if they are comfortable with their pension income, they are free to decline
film work when called by the transportation captain.
40

6 I see no basis for taking into account the fact that Bucalo put himself into the position of having to
live off an inadequate pension due to his “unique” machinations when he was elected to union office in
2010. Had he done what every other union official did, he could have gone back to work for UPS in
2016.
JD–82–19
10
In sum, I find that Respondent has not met in burden of rebutting the General Counsel’s
initial showing of discrimination. It has not established that Bucalo and other retirees were
placed in Group 7 for non-discriminatory reasons.
5
Respondent’s referral rules violate the Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in classifying
employees according to experience in the “Teamster Movie Industry” and the number of
productions on which they have been performing “Teamsters work.”
While the introductory language of Respondent’s referral rules assure that the Union will
not discriminate on the basis of union membership, the expressed requirement of experience in 10
“Teamster work” and reference to the “Teamsters Movie Industry” at best create an ambiguity
which must be resolved against the Union. Respondent explained that its intent was to distinguish
between driving work on movie sets as opposed to work not done by Teamster represented
employees. Nevertheless, such a distinction would not necessarily be apparent to a lay person
reading the referral rules.15
Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(2) of the Act
The is no evidence that Respondent caused or attempted to cause an employer to
discriminate against any employee. There is, for example, no evidence that Charging Party
Bucalo suffered any loss of employment opportunities by virtue of being classified in Group VII.
However, if in compliance it turns out that he did suffer such a loss due to the manner in which 20
he was classified, Respondent will be required to make him whole for such losses.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 25
the policies of the Act,
In the event it is established that Samuel Bucalo is entitled to backpay, it shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in 30
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010). Respondent shall compensate him for
his search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of whether those expenses
exceed his interim earnings, computed as described above.
Respondent shall file a report with the Regional Director for Region 9 allocating backpay 35
to the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate Samuel Bucalo for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering
periods longer than 1 year, AdvoServ of New Jersey, 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the 40
following recommended7

7 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–82–19
11
ORDER
The Respondent, Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 100,
Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
5
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Operating an exclusive hiring hall while using a referral procedure and rules
which place retired employees in a distinct category which results in their being
referred for work in the film industry only after non-retirees are referred.10
(b) Operating an exclusive hiring hall pursuant to a referral procedure and rules
which describes the requisite work experience as “Teamster work” or experience
in the “Teamster Movie Industry” as opposed to a description of the work to be
performed that does not ambiguously suggest a preference for membership in 15
Local 100.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
20
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Revise its hiring hall procedure and rules to delete any provision that places
retirees in a category that results in their being referred to work only after non-
retirees are referred.25
(b) Revise its referral procedure and rules to describe the work covered by the rules in
such a manner as to unambiguously convey the proposition that membership or
non-membership in the Union, past or present, will not be a factor in the referral
of employees for work in the film industry.30
(c) Make Samuel Bucalo whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as
a result of being referred for film industry work pursuant to a policy that resulted
in his being referred only after all non-retired job applicants.
35
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its hiring hall in Cincinnati,
Ohio copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”8 in both English and
Spanish. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall
be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in 40
conspicuous places including all places where notices to unit members are

8 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.”
JD–82–19
12
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the 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 with unit members by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken 5
by the 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,
the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy
of the notice to all individuals who were unit members at any time since June 26, 10
2018.
(e) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for
physical and/or electronic posting by Beta Productions, if willing, at all places or
in the same manner as notices to employees are customarily posted.15
(f) 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 the Respondent has taken to comply.
20
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 24, 2019
25
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge
ciJI,/,44A avtoto,3&__
JD–82–19
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO 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 discriminate against retired employees vis-à-vis non-retired employees in
referring applicants for work in the film industry.
WE WILL NOT operate our exclusive hiring hall pursuant to procedures and rules which
ambiguously suggest that an applicant must be a member of Local 100 in order to be referred for
work in the film industry.
WE WILL revise our Movie Industry Referral Procedure and Rules to eliminate any potential
for discrimination in referral opportunities for job applicants who are receiving a pension or
retirement benefits from any source or Social Security retirement benefits.
WE WILL revise our Movie Industry Referral Procedure and Rules to describe the work to be
performed without any reference to “Teamster Work,” or experience in the “Teamster Movie
Industry.”
WE WILL make Samuel Bucalo whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits which may
have resulted from his being placed in the lowest priority group for referrals in the film industry,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest compounded daily.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
JD–82–19
WE WILL compensate Samuel Bucalo for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year.
TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFERS AND
HELPERS LOCAL UNION 100, a/w
THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS (Beta Productions LLC)
(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.
550 Main Street, Federal Building, Room 3003, Cincinnati, OH 45202-3271
(513) 684-3686, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/09-CB-232458
or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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, (513) 684-3750.