C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc.

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All our employees have the right to join or assist , or to refrain from joining or assisting, Salt Lake Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT question our employees as to whether they engage in union activities or threaten them for doing so or take any action against them for doing so. UNITED PARK CITY MINES COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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. Information regarding the provisions of this notice or compliance with its terms may be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, 609 Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets, Denver, Colorado, Telephone No. 297-3551. C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc. and Sherman M. Hawkins Local 98, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and Peter R. Tiberio, Its Business Agent ( C. & H. Mason Con- tractors, Inc.) and Sherman M. Hawkins. Cases Nos. 1-CA- 4660 and 1-CB-954. April 29,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On March 9, 1965, Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and briefs in support thereof. The General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondents' exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom- 152 NLRB No. 27. C. & H. MASON CONTRACTORS, INC. 237 mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent Union, its officers, agents, and representatives, and Respondent Peter R. Tiberio, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, except that the first indented paragraph in the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision marked "Appendix B" is modified by deleting the words "or any other employer." 1 1 Respondent Union excepted to the broad language in the first indented paragraph of the proposed notice. Since in this respect the scope of the notice exceeds that of the Recommended Order, we have amended the notice to conform thereto TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on July 6, 1964,1 in Cases Nos. 1-CA-4660 and 1-CB-954 by Sherman M. Hawkins , a consolidated complaint was issued on August 20 against C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., herein called Respondent Company, against Local 98, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Union, and against Peter R . Tiberio, its business agent, herein called Respondent Tiberio or Tiberio. The complaint alleges that Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act by discharging Hawkins and that Respondent Tiberio and Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and ( 1)(A) of the Act by causing Respondent Company to discharge Hawkins. Respondent Company and Respondent Union filed answers to the complaint admitting certain allegations but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. All parties were represented at the hearing which was conducted by Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood on October 20 in Springfield, Massachusetts . Briefs have been received from all parties and have been duly considered. Upon the entire record ,2 including my evaluation of the witnesses based upon the evidence and my observation of their demeanor , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY C. & H. Mason Contractors , Inc , is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in masonry construction , with its principal office and place of business at East Long- meadow, Massachusetts. Respondent Company annually performs masonry services valued in excess of $50 ,000 for building construction contractors , which contractors annually purchase materials directly from outside the State of Massachusetts valued in excess of $50,000. All parties admit, and I find, that Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1 Except where otherwise indicated , all dates herein are in 1964 2 After the hearing, I received a motion to amend transcript from the General Counsel containing 11 proposed changes Thereafter I received an objection to amendment of transcript from Respondent Union in which Respondent Union took no position with respect to 10 of the proposed changes but objected to proposed change No . 11 on the ground that this change did not conform to the recollection of counsel for Respondent Union Change No 11 relates to an inquiry made by me at the hearing, Is in accord with my recollection of the matter , and is consistent with earlier positions taken by counsel. General Counsel ' s motion is granted in its entirety I hereby order that the transcript stand corrected as set forth in General Counsel's motion , which motion has been placed in the formal exhibit file. The General Counsel filed, in addition , a motion to strike , in part, brief of Respondent Union Respondent Union filed an objection to motion to strike The motion is denied. It should be noted, however, that inasmuch as that portion of Respondent Union' s brief which the General Counsel sought to strike contains a statement of position ascribed to General Counsel based upon a portion of the transcript which has been corrected above, no consideration has been given to the erroneous statement of position in reaching my decision herein. 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The }acts On December 17, 1963, Respondent Company started work on the American- International College job on State Street in Springfield, Massachusetts. Respondent Company had been working in Connecticut. Leo J Hood, president of Respondent Company, contacted Sherman M. Hawkins, a former employee, and asked him if he wanted to work on the Springfield job, and Hawkins agreed to do so. Hawkins had worked for Respondent Company before, and Hood liked him and considered him a good worker. Hawkins started work on December 17, 1963, on the American International College job. On the same day Hood telephoned Tiberio, business agent of Respondent Union, which Union had jurisdiction of the Springfield job. Hood told Tiberio that a hoisting engineer from Connecticut was coming to work on the job .3 Tiberio said that Hawkins could not work because there were too many people out of work and Hawkins did not have clearance.4 Hood said that Hawkins was already working to which Tiberio replied that "he had men of his own loafing and he didn't have clearance to work in this local," adding that Hood knew better than that 5 Hood said again that the man was already working and that terminated the conversation.6 Hawkins was a member of Local 478 and had been since November 1962. Juris- diction of this local was in Connecticut. As stated above, Hawkins began working on the Springfield job on December 17, 1963, running a construction elevator. On December 20, 1963, while Hawkins was working, Tiberio came out to the job and introduced himself. Tiberio asked if Hawkins was an engineer to which Hawkins replied in the affirmative adding that he was a member of Local 478. Tiberio told Hawkins that he did not want other men coming into his area. Hawkins said that he was willing to pay dues or get a clearance card transferring to Tiberio's local but he was not going to give up the job. Tiberio said that Hawkins was not going to work. Hawkins asked Tiberio why he was objecting and Tiberio said that they did not want him. Hawkins asked "how come" since other members of Local 478 had worked on urban renewal in Springfield . Tiberio replied that they were working on roads and Hawkins asked what difference that made adding that they were engineers out of his local and he could work on roads .7 At this point Tiberio apparently observed' that "Lucky," 8 Hood's labor foreman, was there and Tiberio asked him why he was there. Lucky replied that he wanted the machine running. A "pretty heated argu- ment" then ensued between Lucky and Tiberio following which Tiberio told Haw- kins not to run the elevator . Hawkins however continued to do so.9 The week after December 17, 1963, Hood went to Vermont and when he returned was informed by his foreman that Tiberio had been out to the job a number of times to talk with him about Hawkins. Hood then telephoned Tiberio approximately on December 23, 1963. During this conversation Tiberio repeated that Hawkins did not have clearance and that "he had men in the local loafing." 10 a Hawkins was not mentioned by name but it is clear that he was the subject of the conversation. a Tiberlo's versions of his conversations with Hood, though briefer, do not differ sub- stantially from those of Hood. It is significant to note that Tiberio admitted on cross- examination that when he referred to having too many men out of work he had in mind' men out of his local union , and testified further that there were too many Local 98 members "loafing." s Respondent Company worked in Connecticut under contract with Local 478 of In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers. 6 The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Hood. 7 Tiberio credibly testified that he explained to Hawkins that the reason Respondent Union permitted these men to work was because they were "shorthanded" at that time of the year. 8 This was the name by which Hawkins knew him. 0 The foregoing, except where otherwise indicated , is based on the credited testimony of Hawkins. 10 The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Hood. C. & H. MASON CONTRACTORS, INC. 239 A few days after Christmas Hawkins had a conversation with Hood who told him that Tiberio was making strong objections to his being on the job. Hood suggested that Hawkins go to his own local and get a clearance card and he would transfer Hawkins in Local 98 if he had to. Hawkins left the job to get a clearance card but being "upset" decided to go home instead. That night Hood telephoned Hawkins and told him that he had a right to work. Hood also said that he did not want Hawkins to leave adding that no one had the right to tell him who he could employ. Hawkins then stated that he would go and get a clearance card. The next day Hawkins went to Local 478 and obtained a clearance card. Hawkins stated this occurred the last week in December 1963.11 Hawkins then took the clearance card to Tiberio. Tiberio informed Hawkins that the executive council would vote on the matter and let him know, and again instructed Hawkins not to work on the American International College job. Hawkins, however, continued to work on the job. Later that same day Tiberio advised Hawkins that he expected the executive board to vote that night on the matter and suggested that Hawkins be there. Hawkins said he could not be there to which Tibeno replied that that did not matter adding that the result would be the same.12 On Friday, January 3, Tiberio told Hawkins again that he did not want him run- ning the hoisting equipment. Hawkins replied that he was going to run the elevator and if there was any way for Tibeno to get him off the job to do so because as far as he was concerned he was going to continue to run the elevator Tiberio then instructed Hawkins not to work on the elevator until he talked to Hood on Monday. Hawkins, however, did work on the elevator the following Monday and Tiberio asked him then why he had disobeyed his order and accused Hawkins of not being a good union member. Hawkins said that he was and showed Tiberio his union book from Local 478. Tiberio's reply was that he did not want Hawkins on the job.13 On Monday, January 6 the executive board of Respondent Union voted to table Hawkins' card for 60 days. On Tuesday morning, January 7, Tiberio went out to the job and informed Hawkins that his card had not been accepted and had been tabled for 60 days.14 On January 7 Hood decided to go to the union hall and "resolve the difficulty" because he wanted to keep Hawkins on the job. Hood talked to Tiberio and told him that he wanted to resolve the matter about Hawkins. Tiberio said that he had men loafing and there was nothing he could do about it. Tiberio advised Hood that he was going to have to settle the matter himself. Hood replied that he could not "fire" Hawkins. Tiberio stated again that he had "a lot of men loafing" and that Hawkins did not have clearance from his local. During this conversation Tiberio also complained because Hood had not signed and returned the union contracts which had been previously left at Hood's house.15 Hood told Tiberio that he thought he could hire anybody he wanted to hire. Hood and Tiberio then got "hot" about it and that terminated the conversation. Hood then returned to the job and Tiberio also went to the job and apparently they arrived at about the same time. Another conversation ensued during which Tiberio reiterated that Hawkins did not have clearance, that he had men "loafing," and that Hood was running a nonunion shop.16 Hood denied that he was nonunion to which Tiberio replied that if Hood was union he should abide by union rules. Tiberio stated that if Hood did not do so the Union would put up a picket line. As Hood put it, he then "abided and let the man go and in turn asked for another man out of his local, Bob Giraud." In other words, Hood called Hawkins over and told him that he had to let him go adding that he did not "like to, but I have to." That same morning, Hawkins' replacement, Bob Giraud, a member of Respondent Union was hired.17 "There is some conflict in the testimony of Hawkins and Attillio Sequino, the dis- patcher for Local 478, as to whether or not Sequino refused to grant Hawkins verbal clearance. As it is clear that Hawkins did get a clearance card and take it to Tiberio,. I consider the conflict about verbal clearance immaterial. 12 Tiberio's denial that he made this statement to Hawkins is not credited. 13 The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Hawkins. is The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Tiberio. 15 After Hawkins' discharge, these contracts were signed and sent in to the Respond- ent Union. 1e Tiberlo credibly testified that he told Hood that be had "no oral agreement" with him, had too many men out of work, and had to have a contract and his men "up there." a The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Hood except where otherwise indicated 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Analysis and conclusions It is clear from the foregoing facts that Respondent Company discharged Hawkins because Respondent Union through Respondent Tiberio demanded his discharge and threatened to picket the job if he was not discharged . The issue involved is whether Respondent Union demanded Hawkins' discharge to make work for its own members or to make work for unemployed engineers in the geographical area. Hood's testi- mony establishes that Tiberio repeatedly told him that Hawkins must be discharged because he "had men of his own loafing and [Hawkins ] didn't have clearance to work in this local ." I do not believe Tiberio would have referred to men not belonging to his Union as "men of his own." Also Tiberio referred to "men in the local loafing." Moreover, Tiberio 's testimony on cross-examination casts further light on his motive. Thus Tiberio admitted that when he referred to having too many men out of work he had in mind men out of his local union, and further testified that there were too many Local 98 members "loafing." I therefore find and conclude that Respondent Union demanded Hawkins' dis- charge because he was not a member of Respondent Union and to make work for members of Respondent Union. Accordingly, I must reject the argument made by Respondent Union in its brief that Hawkins ' discharge was demanded because of his geographical origin. Also as I am persuaded by the evidence that Respondent Com- pany knew that the motive for Respondent Union's demand was Hawkins' nonmem- bership in Respondent Union because of what Tiberio told Hood, I must reject Respondent Company 's defense as stated in its brief that it discharged Hawkins because he was not a local area man. In that regard, in addition to what Tiberio told Hood, it is significant to note that after Hood decided to "abide," as he put it, with union rules, he hired a replacement for Hawkins who was a member of Respond- ent Union. I therefore conclude and find on the basis of the entire evidence that Respondent Company discharged Hawkins on January 7 pursuant to the demand of Respondent Union because Hawkins was not a member of Respondent Union and to make work for a member of Respondent Union, and that Respondent Company did thereby engage in discrimination to encourage membership in Respondent Union in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. 18 I further find that Respondent Union and Respondent Tiberio caused Respondent Company to engage in said discrimina- tion in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and did thereby violate Section 8(b)(2) and ( 1) (A) of the Act.19 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above , which occurred in connection with the operations of Respondent Company set forth 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that each of them cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, including the posting of appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will also be recommended that Respondent Company offer Hawkins immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges ; and that the Respondent Union 18 Cf G & H Construction Company, 130 NLRB 923 , 931; Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Local Union No. 18 of Missouri (Ferguson Tile and Marble Co.), 151 NLRB 160. 19 As the contract between Respondent Company and Local 478 , International Union of Operating Engineers ( General Counsel 's Exhibit No 3) is limited by its terms to work performed within Local 478's jurisdiction in the State of Connecticut , and as no evidence was adduced of a pre-job conference between Respondent Company and Respondent Union , I must reject Respondent Union's affirmative defense stated in its answer to com- plaint that it and Respondent Company were subject to prebire agreements whereby unemployed and qualified members of Local 98 were entitled to employment preference on work performed within the jurisdiction of Respondent Union. I note also that the evidence does not establish that Respondent Company and Respondent Union had either an oral or written contract when Hawkins was discharged. C. & H. MASON CONTRACTORS, INC. 241 and Respondent Tiberio notify Respondent Company in writing, and furnish a copy to Hawkins, that they have withdrawn their objections to his employment by Respond- ent Company and request the Respondent Company to reinstate him. Since it has been found that Respondent Union and Respondent Company are both responsible for the discrimination suffered by Hawkins, it will be recommended that they jointly and severally make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the Respondent Company's offer of reinstatement less net earn- ings, and in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.20 The Respondent Union shall not be liable for any backpay which may accrue for the period beginning 5 days after it notifies the Company and Hawkins as aforesaid. It is also recommended that the Company make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate computation of the amount of backpay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondents were of a character which go to the very heart of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondents be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act 2' Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Sherman M. Hawkins, thereby encouraging membership in Respondent Union, Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By causing the Respondent Company to discriminate against Hawkins in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent Tiberio and Respondent Union have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that: A. C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Encouraging membership in Respondent Union, or in any other labor organi- zation, by discharging employees or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Sherman M. Hawkins immediate reinstatement to his former or sub- stantially equivalent position without prejudice, and jointly and severally with 20Although I find that Business Agent Tiberio violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act, I will not recommend that he be ordered to make Hawkins whole because he acted as agent of the Respondent Union and not in his Individual capacity. Local 420, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb- ing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL (J. J. White, Inc.), 111 NLRB 1126. 21 Consolidated Ventilation and Duct Co., Inc, 144 NLRB 324 789-730-66-vol. 152-17 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent Union make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Sherman M. Hawkins if he is serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for. examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to compute the amount of backpay and the right of reinstatement. (d) Post in its office at East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 22 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Company's representative, be posted by it 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (d) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the Respondent Union's notice herein marked "Appendix B." (t) Furnish to the said Regional Director signed copies of the notice marked "Appendix A" for posting by the Respondent Union, as hereinafter directed. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Recommended Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith.23 B. Respondent Union, its officers, agents, and representatives and Respondent Peter R. Tiberio, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns to discriminate against employees because they are not members of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of Respondent Com- pany in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify C. & H. Mason Contractors , Inc., in writing, that they withdraw all objections to the employment of Sherman M. Hawkins, with copy to Hawkins individually, and that they request the Company to offer Hawkins immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent employment. (b) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent Union 's business offices, meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 24 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Union and by Respondent Tiberio, be posted immedi- ately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (b), above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent Company's notice marked "Appendix A." "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the,Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals. the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 21 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director, in writing. .within 10 days trom date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 24 See footnote 22, supra C. & H. MASON CONTRACTORS, INC. 243 (d) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the aforesaid notices for posting by the Respondent Company at its offices in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being signed by the Respondents, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.25 C. In addition, Respondent Union shall take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate.the policies of the Act: . Jointly and severally with Respondent Company make Sherman M. Hawkins whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." :b See footnote 23, supra. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 98, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent per- mitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL jointly and severally with Local 98, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, make whole Sherman M. Hawkins for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. WE WILL offer to Sherman M. Hawkins immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. C. & H. MASON CONTRACTORS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele- phone No. 523-8100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., or any other employer, to discriminate against employees because they are not members of this Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. This Union will jointly and severally with C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., make Sherman M. Hawkins whole for any loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against him. WE WILL notify C. & H. Mason Contractors , Inc., in writing and furnish copies of such notification to Sherman M. Hawkins that we have no objection to his employment by said Company. LOCAL 98, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) PETER R . TIBERIO, Business Agent. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Peter It. Tiberio ) (Title) 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street , Boston, Massachusetts, Tele- phone No . 523-8100, if they have questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Lone Star Textiles, Inc., Guadalupe Valley Cotton Mills Division and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases Nos. 23-CA-18f1, 23-CA-1821-2, and 23-CA-1821-3. April 29, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On February 9, 1965, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. 152 NLRB No. 24.