Utility and Industrial Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 19, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

UTILITY & INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CO. Utility and Industrial Construction Company and Hughie D. Durham, Jr. Local 1076, International Laborers Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Hughie D. Durham, Jr. Cases 7-CA-10924 and 7-CB-3014 November 19, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On June 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Thomas S. Wilson issued his Decision is the above- entitled proceeding, finding that both Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion, as set forth in the attached Administrative Law Judge's Decision. The Administrative Law Judge fur- ther found that the Respondent Union had not en- gaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed exceptions and a brief in support thereof. The General Counsel filed a cross-exception and a brief in answer to Respondent Union's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, except as modified herein.' We cannot agree with the failure of the Adminis- trative Law Judge to find that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by its refusal to accept Durham's application for registra- tion and referral with its hiring hall because he was a member of Local 463 and not a member of Respon- dent Local 1076. The record clearly reveals, and the Administrative Law Judge found, that Respondent Union had an exclusive hiring hall arrangement with the Employer herein. On or about March 1, 1974, Durham tele- phoned the offices of Local 1076 and spoke with the Union's business manager. Durham inquired about his chance of getting on the local's referral list and i On the basis of the uncontroverted evidence of record, we find, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that employees Lyle Hutchinson, John Haley, Dick Briand, and Herbert Hovey were not referred to the Leonard Yard project by Respondent Local 1076 1053 was told that "there was no way because I was a member of Local 463." The Administrative Law Judge reasoned that, be- cause the Respondent Company never again request- ed any employees from the Respondent Union's re- ferral system , the violation was merely a theoretical one and dismissed the allegations of the complaint in regard thereto . This conclusion must be rejected. We have consistently held that to establish a violation, it is unnecessary to show that jobs were available at the time of the request for referral .2 The stated reason for the Union's refusal to register and refer was non- membership. Hence , we find that by refusing, on or about March 1, 1974, to register and refer Durham, the Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act? THE AMENDED REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Union and Re- spondent Employer have engaged in certain unfair labor practices in connection with the termination of employee Durham, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative ac- tion, including reinstatement and backpay as provid- ed in the Administrative Law Judge's Remedy. Having found also that the Respondent Union has refused to register and refer Hughie D. Durham, Jr., from its exclusive hiring hall, we shall order the Re- spondent Union to register Durham immediately and to make him whole for any loss of earnings by reason of lost opportunity for referral during the period March 1, 1974, to the present.4 Backpay is to be com- puted in accordance with the formula in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and with 6- percent interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 2 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 648 (Foothill Electrical Corporation), 182 NLRB 66, 69 ( 1970), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 82 (National Electrical Contractors Association, Dayton, Ohio Chapter), 182 NLRB 59, 62 (1970), see N L R B v Local 803, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL [Harbor Ship Maintenance Co 1 218 F 2d 299. 300, 303 (C A 3, 1955), N L R B v The Lummus Company, 210 F 2d 377, 380-381 (C A 5. 1954) 3 Construction and General Laborers' Union Local 304, Laborers ' Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Wells and Kelly Steel Form Erec- tion Service), 191 NLRB 764 (1971), Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (California Trucking Association), 188 NLRB 305 (1971) The refusal of the Union to register and refer Durham reinforces the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Union was illegally motivated in seeking Durham's discharge and thereby violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2) of the Act 4 The record reveals that there were no possible referrals from March 1, 1974, until the time of hearing Whether there was a loss because of any opportunities after that must be ascertained at the compliance stage of the proceedings 214 NLRB No. 152 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent Utility and Industrial Construction Company, Detroit, Michigan , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, and Respondent Local 1076, International Laborers Union of North America , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents , and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order as so modified: 1. Add the following new paragraph I, B, (1) and renumber consecutively the present paragraph I, B, ( 1) and the succeeding paragraphs. "(1) Offer to reinstate Hughie D . Durham , Jr., to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position at its Leonard Yard project near Lakeville , Michigan , without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges." 2. Substitute the following paragraphs for para- graph II , B, (1) and renumber the succeeding para- graphs accordingly. "(1) Jointly and severally with Utility and Indus- trial Construction Company make Hughie D. Dur- ham, Jr., whole for any loss of pay he may have suf- fered because of his discriminatory termination, and severally make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by the refusal to register him at its hiring hall, in the manner set forth herein and in the section of the Administrative Law Judge 's Decision entitled "The Remedy," with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. See Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1142 (1962). "(2) Notify Utility and Industrial Construction Company, in writing, with a copy to Hughie D. Dur- ham, Jr ., that it has no objection to Durham's em- ployment , and that it will not refuse to register or refer Durham , or any other fob applicant, through its hiring hall procedures because he lacks membership in Local 1076." 3. Substitute the attached notices for the notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B" of the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 1076, International Laborers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, by laying off , discharging, or otherwise discriminating against any employ- ee in regard to tenure of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form , join , or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities, ex- cept to the extent that such rights may be affect- ed by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to reinstate Hughie D. Dur- ham, Jr ., to his former job or, if that job no lon- ger exists, to a substantially equivalent position at our Leonard Yard project, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. WE WILL, jointly and severally with Local 1076, International Laborers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, make Hughie D. Durham, Jr., whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him with interest thereon at 6 percent per an- num. All our employees are free to become , remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named labor union or any labor organiza- tion except to the extent that this right may be affect- ed by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. UTILITY AND INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Utility and Industrial Construction Company, or any other employer , to discriminate against any em- ployee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT refuse to register Hughie D. Durham , Jr., or any other applicant for employ- ment , through our hiring hall procedures to any employer because he is not a member of Local 1076. UTILITY & INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CO. 1055 WE WILL jointly and severally with Utility and Industrial Construction Company make Hughie D. Durham , Jr., whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his unlawful layoff, and severally make him whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of our re- fusal to register him at our hiring hall, with in- terest thereon at 6 percent per annum. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be af- fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment , as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. LOCAL 1076, INTERNATION- AL LABORERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL- CIO DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge in Case 7-CA-10924 and a charge in Case 7- CB-3014 each duly filed on February 15, 1974, by Hughie D. Durham, Jr.,' an individual, herein called the Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein referred to as the General Counsel 2 and the Board, respectively, the Regional Director for Re- gion 7 (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated April 2, 1974, against Utility and Industrial Construction Com- pany, herein referred to as Respondent Company and against Local 1076, International Laborers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Respondent Union. The consolidated complaint alleged that Respondent Company had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) and that Respondent Union had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. Respondents duly filed individual answers admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the com- mission of any unfair labor practices Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held in De- troit, Michigan, on May 21, 1974, before me. All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by officials or attorneys, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, ' As amended at the hearing without objection 2 This term specifically includes the attorney appearing on behalf of the General Counsel at the hearing to produce, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was waived. Briefs were received from the General Counsel and Re- spondent Union on June 13, 1974. No brief was received from Respondent Company. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY The complaint alleges, Respondent Company's answer admits and, accordingly I find: Utility and Industrial Construction Company is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly orga- nized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan. At all times material herein Respondent Company has maintained its principal office and place through P.O. Box 285, Mount Pleasant, Michigan. Respon- dent Company has various sites in the State of Michigan, including a jobsite located in Lakeville, Michigan, known as the Leonard Yard jobsite Respondent Company is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the busi- ness of pipeline construction. Respondent Company's job- site located at Lakeville, Michigan, is the only facility in- volved in this proceeding. During the year ending Decem- ber 31, 1973, which period is representative of its operations during all times material herein, Respondent Company, in the course and conduct of its business opera- tions, performed services valued in excess of $500,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed in the State of Michigan for Michigan Consolidated Gas Company and Dow Chemical Company, each of which companies, during the year 1973, had gross revenue ex- ceeding $500,000 and purchased goods and materials val- ued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located out- side the State of Michigan for direct shipment to their Michigan places of business. I therefore find that Respondent Employer is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 11. THE RESPONDENT UNION Local 1076, International Laborers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Beginning about January 6, 1974, Respondent Company began a pipeline construction job near Lakeville, Michi- gan, known herein as the Leonard Yard project. The Com- pany brought to this project about 20 employees, including four laborers, who had been working for the Company on other projects prior thereto. None of these employees were members of Local 1076. 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A day or two thereafter Fred Sylvester, business agent of Local 1076, appeared at the jobsite. He held a conference with U and I General Manager Milton Otteman at which it was agreed "to have all new men hired on the [Leonard Yard] job hired through Local 1076." Thereafter some la- borers were referred to the Leonard Yard project by Local 1076 including Union Steward Eric Fulgenzi, Marvin Rathbun, Mike Hamblin, Lyle Hutchinson, John Haley, Al Toth, Dick Braind, and Herbert Hovey. On or about February 4, following a week's layoff of the job due to bad weather, Respondent Company employed Hughie Durham, Jr., as a laborer. Durham had not been referred by Local 1076 and he was not a member of Local 1076. In fact Durham was a member of a sister local, Local 463, which had no jurisdiction in Oakland County where the project was located. Durham's hiring is somewhat of a mystery. His hire was apparently arranged for with Respondent Company by his father who was the Operating Engineers' steward on the job. On February 4 Durham appeared before the company bookkeeper, signed the necessary job employment papers, reported to the foreman, and was put to work. In fact he worked on the same truck as Eric Fulgenzi, the steward for Local 1076. It so happened that in January 1974 Durham had been working on a Mid-America job close by Leonard Yard where Eric Fulgenzi had also been the Local 1076 steward. At that time having learned that Respondent Company would be starting the Leonard Yard project and that Ful- genzi was going to be the Local 1076 steward on that pro- ject, Durham had asked Fulgenzi if he, Durham, would have a chance of getting on the Leonard Yard project. Ful- genzi answered that he thought that Durham would have a good chance. So the day prior to the week's layoff referred to above on the Leonard Yard job Durham came onto that project to be hired. However he was informed by Fulgenzi of the week's layoff. Durham then told Fulgenzi that he would be back at the end of the layoff to go to work. Fulgenzi an- swered that that would be all right but that he would talk to Sylvester about it. On the morning of February 4 when Durham signed in, as aforementioned, Fulgenzi happened to be absent. But thereafter Durham and Fulgenzi worked together on the same truck. Some time prior to February 14 Sylvester was again at the Leonard Yard project where he conversed with Otte- man and Respondent Company President Frank Camp- bell. Among other topics of conversation Sylvester was in- terested in finding out who had hired Durham and how. The Respondent company officials could only tell Sylves- ter that they thought Durham had been hired by Respon- dent Company's Vice President Kenneth Campbell or had been brought in by Fulgenzi and cleared by him. Sylvester thereupon complained vigorously that Durham had not been hired through the Local 1076. He ended this part of the conversation by announcing that, when there was a layoff, he wanted Durham laid off first. Also shortly before February 14 Respondent Company wanted to lay off two employees who were members of Local 1076 and had been referred to the job by Local 1076 for lack of performance. But Fulgenzi informed Respon- dent Company that it could not lay off the two employees so selected before laying off employees it had brought to the job itself "because they had to keep a balance on the job, so many laborers out of 1076 and so many laborers we brought in ourselves." The two Local 1076 employees were not laid off. On February 14 Respondent Company laid off four or five laborers permanently due to bad weather and a lack of equipment. Durham was the first employee so laid off. The two Local 1076 employees with poor performance records were retained. Except for Sylvester's instructions Durham would not have been laid off during this layoff because under the Respondent Company's usual layoff policy the two Local 1076 employees would have gone because of poor produc- tion and Durham would have been retained. After his layoff on February 14 Frank Campbell told Durham, "[Campbell] told me [Durham] that he had to lay me off because Frank Sylvester told him to because I was a member of Local 463." On February 15 Durham filed charges against Respon- dent Company and against Respondent Union. On or about March 1 Durham telephoned the offices of Local 1076 and asked about his chances of returning to the Leonard Yard's site. The Local 1076 business manager an- swered that he knew nothing about that. Durham then in- quired about his chances of getting on the Local's referral list. The answer to that was that "there was no way because I was a member of Local 463." B. Conclusions Under the undisputed facts here it is perfectly clear that Respondent Local 1076 instructed Respondent Company that Durham was to be the first man to be laid off on any layoff at the Leonard Yard project because he was not a member of Local 1076 (not one of "our own people," i.e., a nonmember of Respondent Union) and had not been re- ferred to the job by Respondent Union. This requirement, of course, had the natural and normal consequence of en- couraging membership in Local 1076 and discouraging membership, in Durham's case, in Local 463. Hence when Respondent Company acquiesced in Re- spondent Union's instructions that Durham must be the first man laid off, it discriminated against Durham in order to encourage membership in Local 1076 and discouraged membership in Local 463 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. It is well established that a labor organization violates Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) when it attempts to cause or causes an employer to discriminate against an employee because of his nonmembership in a labor organization, ab- sent a case of noncompliance with a legal union-security clause of which there is none here. Hence by causing Respondent Company to permanently lay off Durham because of his nonmembership in Local 1076 and because he had not been referred to that employ- ment by Local 1076, it violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. As for the allegations of the complaint that Respondent UTILITY & INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CO. Union refused to accept Durham for union referral to jobs because he was a member of Local 463 instead of a mem- ber of Local 1076, this, in the absence of an exclusive refer- ral or hiring arrangement , would appear to be the epitome of discrimination. However here, as Respondent points out in its brief, the evidence indicates that the sole company to which referral by Respondent Union was available hap- pened to be the Respondent Company 3 and that after the layoff of February 14, Respondent Company never again requested any employees from the Respondent Union's re- ferral system. Hence the violation here is more theoretical than real and hence, due exclusively to the failure of proof in this regard, I will reluctantly dismiss the allegations of the complaint in regard thereto. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents, Company and Union, set forth in section III, and occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY As I have found that Respondents have engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I recommend that the Board issue an Order set forth below requiring Respondent to cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. I hereby order Respondent to reinstate Durham to his formerjob or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position at the Leonard Yard project, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and that it make Durham whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him jointly and severally with Local 1076. The amount of backpay shall be a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned on and after February 14, 1974, to the date of Respondent's offer to reinstate him, less his net earnings during said period, computed in accordance with the formula stated in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum As it has been found that Respondent Local 1076 at- tempted to and did cause Respondent Company to perma- nently lay off Durham because of his nonmembership in Respondent Union and his not having been referred to the job by said Respondent Union, I shall therefore recom- mend that Respondent Union forthwith advise the Re- spondent Company, in writing, with a copy to Durham, that it has no objections to the employment of Durham in the position for which he was hired or in a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or 3In this regard the evidence and commonsense are completely at odds but I am here restricted to the evidence 1057 other rights and privileges and that Respondent Union, jointly and severally with Respondent Company, make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of his permanent layoff and/or discharge. Said loss of pay, based on earnings he normally would have earned from February 14, 1974, until 5 days after receipt of this letter by Respon- dent Company, shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By permanently laying off Hughie D. Durham, Jr., because of his nonmembership in and nonreferral by Local 1076, Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By causing Respondent Company to discriminate against Hughie D. Durham, Jr., because of his lack of membership and referral by Local 1076, Local 1076 en- gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Sec- tion 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend- ed, I hereby issue the following recommended. ORDER4 1. Respondent Utility and Industrial Construction Com- pany, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: A. Cease and desist from: (1) Encouraging membership in Local 1076, Interna- tional Laborers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, by discriminating against any employee for nonmembership or nonreferral in and by that organization, except as au- thorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as amended. (2) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (1) Jointly and severally with the above-named Union and in the manner set forth in the portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," make whole Hughie D. Durham, Jr., for any loss of pay he suffered because of the discrimi- nation against him with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum (2) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms here above. (3) Post at its office in the Leonard Yard project, Lake- ville, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix A." Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Company, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (4) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision and rec- ommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. II. Local 1076, International Laborers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall: A. Cease and desist from: (1) Causing or attempting to cause Utility and Industrial Construction Company, or any other employer, to discrim- 5In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " mate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (2) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (1) Jointly and severally with Utility and Industrial Construction Company, and in the manner set forth in the portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," make Hughie D. Durham, Jr., whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. See Seaferers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1142. (2) Post at its business office copies of the attached no- tice marked "Appendix B." 6 Copies of such notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, af- ter being duly signed by a representative of Local 1076, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places including all places where notices to its mem- bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be tak- en by Local 1076 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (3) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless Respondents no- tify the said Regional Director within 20 days from receipt hereof that they will take the action here recommended, the Board issue an order directing Respondents to take the action here recommended. 6 See fn 5, supra