Int'l Assn. of Bridge, Etc. Wkrs., Local 350

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL International Association of Bridge , Struc- tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 350 and John E. Curran, and Atlantic County Building Trades Employers Associa- tion and Brandenberger Iron Co., Inc. and Speed Iron Company, Parties to the Contract and Hull Erecting Co., Keystone Wire & Iron Works , Inc., Delco Steel Fabricators, Inc., Parties to an Agreement International Association of Bridge , Struc- tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 350 and Robert Tate. Cases 4-CB-1204 and 4-CB-1252. May 16, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On November 30, 1966, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was 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 Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support of the Decision. 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. 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations' of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 350, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Delete paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and the seventh indented paragraph in the attached Appendix. ' The General Counsel requested expansion of the remedy to cover all loss of pay suffered by Curran and the other four members of the opposition slate by reason of Respondent's discrimination in referrals subsequent to June 2, 1965, and any loss of pay suffered by Tate by reason of his discriminatory expulsion from Respondent's area We are constrained to deny the General Counsel's request in light of her specific statements made in the record at the hearing that she was "not seeking an order with regard to any incident not covered by the complaint" and that the "only acts of substantive violations are those in the complaint" with any other evidence going to motivation These statements apparently resulted in Respondent's attorney not examining witnesses with regard to other dates of possible discrimination in referral during the 10(b) period. In the circumstances, we shall not permit the General Counsel to raise this matter at this stage of the proceeding As it is not the responsibility of the Regional Director to assist in formulating and establishing a lawful hiring hall, and as there are a number of formulas which may be utilized to safeguard against the discriminatory operation of a lawful hiring hall arrangement, we do not adopt paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order In our view, the remaining portions of the Order provide adequate means to assure a remedy to the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was heard before me in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on May 10 through 13, 1966, on complaints' of the General Counsel and answers of International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 350 (herein called Respondent), Atlantic County Building Trades Employers Association (herein called the Employers Association), and also by Brandenberger Iron Co., Inc. (herein called Brandenberger), Pleasantville Steel Co., Inc. (herein called Pleasantville), Keystone Wire and Iron Works, Inc. (herein called Keystone), and Delco Steel Fabricators, Inc. (herein called Delco). The issues litigated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act, by maintaining with the Association and its employer- members an exclusive hiring hall practice and applying it discriminatorily against John E. Curran; by maintaining with three out-of-town steel erection contractors, Hull Erecting Co. (herein called Hull), Keystone, and Delco, an exclusive hiring hall practice and agreement whereby when the contractors have jobs within the territorial jurisdiction of the Respondent they may bring into that jurisdiction 50 percent of the total ironworkers required, but the remaining ironworkers required must be cleared and referred to the jobs by Respondent; and by threatening Robert Tate with economic reprisals and sending him to a job knowing there was no work for him or that he would not be permitted to work, because he gave ' The charge in Case 4-CB-1204 was filed November 22, 1965, by John E Curran, an individual, and served on Respondent the following day The charge in Case 4--CB-1252, was filed on March 31, 1966, by Robert A Tate, an individual, and served on Respondent the following day. 164 NLRB No. 85 INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC., WKRS., LOCAL 350 645 testimony and cooperated with the Regional Office in the investigation of a charge. After the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent each filed briefs, which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION AND THE COMPANIES The Employers Association is a nonprofit New Jersey corporation maintaining its principal place of business in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It engages in joint group collective- bargaining activities for and on behalf of its employer-members including Brandenberger, J.J. Nugent Co., herein called Nugent, and until August 24, 1965, the estate of Henry S. Speed trading as Speed Iron Co., herein called Speed.2 Members of the Association are engaged, within the geographical jurisdiction of Respondent, in field fabrication and erection of ferrous and nonferrous material and related work. During the year prior to the issuance of the consolidated complaint in late -April 1966, the Association's employer-members performed services valued in excess of $50,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed in States other than the State of New Jersey. Brandenberger, Nugent, and Speed are all located in or near Atlantic City. Each is a member of the Association. Brandenberger annually perchases and receives goods which exceed $50,000 in value from suppliers located outside of New Jersey. Until August 24, 1965, Speed annually purchased and received goods which exceeded $50,000 from suppliers located outside of New Jersey. Nugent is a member of the Association and is presently a participant in a joint venture performing national defense work valued at more than $3 million. Hull is a Pennsylvania corporation maintaining places of business in the States of New York and Pennsylvania. It annually performs services outside of Pennsylvania valued in excess of $50,000. Keystone is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, and it annually purchases and receives goods which exceed $50,000 in value from suppliers outside of Pennsylvania. Delco is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia and which annually performs services outside of Pennsylvania valued in excess of $50,000. Upon the above evidence, I find that the Association, and its employer-members including Brandenberger, Nugent, and until August 24, 1965, Speed and also Hull, Keystone, and Delco are each employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 350, herein called Respondent, Respondent Local, Respondent Union, Local 350, and the Local, is now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is affiliated with International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the International Union. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Hiring Hall Practice This proceeding tests the lawfulness or unlawfulness of referral practices of Terrance J. Norton, who at the time of the events herein had been for over 20 years, and still was, Respondent's business representative. The General Counsel did not contend that there was currently, or during the events herein, a written mandatory exclusive hiring hall clause which Norton administered. The General Counsel contended and proved that Norton's practice at all times material herein was the same as it had been when the contracts with employers contained a written hiring hall clause, that neither employers nor employees have ever been told the hiring system has changed, and that in practice and in fact the mandatory exclusive hiring hall still exists. The General Counsel contended and proved that Norton administers the hiring hall discriminatorily against a group of oppositionists, particularly Curran, who opposed his administration of Respondent Local and his referral practices, and who ran as a slate against Norton and the incumbent officers of the Local in a union election in June 1965. The current contract between Local 350 and the Employers Association, running from July 1, 1965, until June 30, 1968, does not include a mandatory exclusive hiring hall clause, and provides that "this agreement contains all of the provisions agreed upon by the Employers and the Union." Earlier contracts, specifically in 1958, under instructions from the International union contained detailed mandatory exclusive hiring hall clauses. These clauses were eliminated sometime between November 1958 and July 1965. Local 350 has no union hall, no hiring hall, and no office, Norton runs the hiring hall from his home. Both employers and employees call Norton on the union telephone, which is in Norton's home and has extensions in the homes of two of Norton's married daughters. In Norton's absence sometimes his daughters refer members to jobs or report that there are no jobs. Insofar as the record showed, Norton keeps no records of what jobs come in to be filled or of what men are sent or not sent to fill them. The evidence is overwhelming that neither employers to whom Respondent refers ironworkers nor union member employees were ever notified or told that any changes were being made or had been made away from the system established by the written mandatory exclusive hiring hall contracts; that, with rare exceptions, all employers, local and out-of-town, hire their ironworkers exclusively through Norton; and that both employers and employees understand that it is mandatory that all hiring be done through Norton. The president of Brandenberger Iron Co., Inc., testified that the hiring system has been the same since 1954, that no one from Local 350 has ever discussed the hiring system with him, that he always gets his ironworkers from Norton, never off the street, and never requests certain employees by name. In February 1965, he wrote that in 2 Speed became Pleasantville on August 25, 1965 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD November 1962, when one of his employees, Curran, had to be off to go to court, "we had to contact Local No. 350 for another ironworker to replace him [emphasis supplied]." He wrote further that Curran was later permitted to return to work "with confirmation from Local No. 350." In testifying President Brandenberger elaborated: "I'd have to ask Mr. Norton on that, whether he would allow me to resume this guy to go to work again." Thus, it appears that Brandenberger was under compulsion to hire through Local 350 in 1962, and that this compulsion never left him. The manager of Peter Stewart Iron Co., a local concern, whose memory goes back 10 years, testified that as outside superintendent he hired ironworkers for his company until about 5 years ago, that as long as he could remember the company has hired through Norton, never from the street, that he has never been notified of a change in procedure. For at least 14 years, Al Feriozzi and Son, Incorporated, a member of the Employers Association, has hired ironworkers by calling Norton. The company has never been notified that the procedure for hiring ironworkers has been changed. Hull's. field superintendent, who "has been in this business 18 years" credibly testified that during that time the procedure for hiring ironworkers in the Atlantic City area has not changed; that he knows from personal experience that the procedure for hiring ... right this second, has not changed at all "because I hired men out of this Local 15 years ago, and I hired men out of this Local 4 months ago, and I did it with the same procedure, I talked to the same man;" that about 2 years ago Norton told him he had to hire through Norton as distinguished from hiring members of Local 350 on his own ; that in hiring practice the company hasn't changed, and neither has the Local because "Mr. Norton's still here;" that no one from the Local ever told him the procedure had changed. An outside foreman of Keystone who hires ironworkers credibly testified that in the Atlantic City area it is mandatory that he contact the Local for men, and that he contacts Norton. As is seen below Foreman Smith of Delco, who never gave Curran a job despite Curran's considerable and repeated effort to obtain one, told Norton that if Norton would send Curran out, that is refer him, Smith would hire him. Smith testified it was "necessary" for him to call the business agent when he needed men, that that is the usual procedure, that he would send an applicant for a job to Norton for clearance "for as far as I'm concerned it is his territory and every man that I get is cleared through the hall, because I'm a union man myself." The assistant manager of Atlantic Exposition Drayage Co., a local concern, who hires ironworkers, testified that when Norton "cannot fulfill the amount of men I need, I am free to hire who I want .... If he doesn't have men, I have the right to hire who I want, [Emphasis supplied.] The italicized words show that the company was under compulsion to hire through Norton unless Norton was unable to supply the men. Once when Curran sought a fob from this company at the jobsite, the Local's steward on the job barred him from the job on the grounds that Norton had said Curran was offered a job elsewhere that morning and had refused it and so he could not work on this jobsite. Corroborating this testimony the company's assistant manager, who hired employees, testified that he asked the steward why Curran could not go to work, "and he stated the man [Curran] was ordered into another job on that given day and that's why . . . ." From this testimony it appears that in practice Norton not only exercises an exclusive hiring hall, but that he dictates what job a man will take if there is more than one job open. Sometimes Norton's exclusive hiring hall practice had to be imposed upon employers, but Norton was able to impose it. In the spring of 1964 the president of Garden State Glass Co., a local company, told Norton that he was going to hire, to do his ironwork, two men he knew were unpopular with Norton. The latter replied that if he did Norton would "pull the other ironworkers from the job." Norton further instructed the company president that Norton "would supply the men to the job," and the company president would take whom Norton sent, not whom the president chose. That is exactly what happened. In June 1965, when Norton learned that some of the opposition slate had been campaigning on a Speed job, he instructed the man calling to get men for Speed that he was not to put on (to hire) Curran, Hayes, or Draper. Norton added "all the men that come on that job are going to be hired ... I'll send them to you from here ... When they get on the job you get their names, and you call me up and tell me who come on that job." When the man who had called for Speed told Speed's general manager of Norton's instructions concerning the foreman, the general manager replied, "you're not out of this Local ... I wouldn't get involved in a Local matter ... all the men [I] would put on the job would come from the hall, or from Terry Norton, he would send the men out, all the men that would be hired for a fob would come through Terry Norton." In 1963 when an employer named Healey, from out-of- town, hired Elmer Draper as foreman directly without going through Norton, the result was that 3 weeks later Healey demoted Draper from foreman and a week later discharged him, telling Draper that "the change had to be made, Norton was going to get (Healey) a lot of work ... if `Healey' would let Draper go." When Healey hired Draper he told him they were going to hire lots of ironworkers. When Draper suggested hiring McVey and another ironworker named McKillop, Healey endorsed the idea, saying that McVey had worked for him before. At Draper's suggestion, McVey called Healey and asked for a job. Healey said he would like to have McVey and would call him as soon as he put on any men. A week or two later McVey called Healey again about the job. Healey said, "Joe ... if you want to go to work out there ... you'll have to take it up with Norton ..-.. I don't want to get into any difficulties with the business agent ... I don't want no trouble ... I have a big job going down there ... You'd better talk to Norton about it." When McVey called Norton the latter told McVey he wanted to see him. When McVey went where Norton directed him, the latter asked him, "what are you trying to do, pick your jobs .... I heard you are trying to get a job out there with Draper. You know Draper and I don't get along .... You can't go to work out there." McVey did not. When the president of J.J. Nugent Co., of the Atlantic City area, needed a foreman and an ironworker, and wanted to hire two men he knew, Kepner and Heath, instead of hiring them directly he "requested that Mr. Norton hire Mr. Kepner in the capactiy of general ironworker foreman" and "requested Mr. Norton to make Mr. Heath available." Nugent explained this by saying this was the easy way "because he is in control of them, as far asl know." [Emphasis supplied.] Out-of-town employers needing ironworkers to work within the jurisdiction of Local 350 get their employees the INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC., WKRS., LOCAL 350 same way the local employers do, as has been seen above in the cases of Hull and Delco. However the out-of-town employer may bring with him to Atlantic City up to 50 percent of his needs. Under a rule of the constitution of the International union, which the employers honor, "members of one Local Union shall not seek employment, be employed, or remain at the trade within the territorial jurisdiction of another Local Union without the consent of such other Local Union." Another constitution rule requires, upon pain of a fine, that members going into the jurisdiction of a local to work must notify the local. Out-of-town employers customarily call Norton prior to going into the Atlantic City area. In this call they negotiate with Norton the exact number of men they will bring in and the exact number of men Norton will supply in compliance with the 50-50 rule. When the local men are fully employed the out-of-town employer may be permitted to bring in more than 50 percent. When there are local men out of work he may be permitted to bring in less than 50 percent. The entire record showed that out-of-town employers understood that they must hire their ironworkers through Norton, although some of them were not quite certain why. Conclusions: As has been seen above and will be seen below, the preponderance of the evidence impels the conclusion that employers hiring ironworkers within the jurisdiction of Local 350, whether local or out-of-town employers, understand that it is mandatory that they hire through Norton, and in fact they now hire exclusively through Norton. (The exceptions by their rarity accentuate the existence of an exclusive arrangement.) The mandatory hiring through Norton has been going on for many years, and many years since the hiring hall clause was removed from the contract. The record proved beyond question that when the written clause establishing a mandatory exclusive hiring hall was removed from the controlling contract neither employer nor employees were informed of it. Never since then have they been informed of any change in the hiring system. Respondent Local has never taken any step to insure employers or employees that the illegal hiring practice has in fact been abolished. Though presumably the employer representatives who negotiated the present contract between the Local and the Employers Association knew the written clause was deleted, there is no evidence that the men who did the hiring for the employers had or have any such knowledge. Although some of the employer witnesses on cross- examination testified in response to leading questions that the reason they call Norton is because of the convenience and the availability of men through a common source, their testimony on direct examination showed that the prime reason was the element of compulsion. This element of compulsion, which Norton applied against both employers and employees, is revealed by such phrases as: "we had to contact Local #350 for another ironworker to replace him;" "with confirmation from Local #350;" "I'd have to ask Mr. Norton on that, whether he would allow me to resume this guy to go to work again;" the hiring practices have not changed because "Mr. Norton's still here;" it is S Cf International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 624 A-B (D. S McClanahan & Son, Inc), 141 NLRB 615, Local 568, Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union (Warwick Hotel, Inc), 141 NLRB 310, enfd 334 F 2d 723 (C.A 3); Carpenters District Council of Detroit, etc (W J C Kaufmann Company), 125 NLRB 546, enfd 285 F 2d 289, 47 LRRM 2200 (C A D.C.); Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers (Elmhurst Contracting Co , Inc), 141 NLRB 53, enfd. with modifications not relevant 329 F.2d 512, 55 LRRM 2634 (C.A 3); Local 7, 647 "necessary" to call Norton "because as far as I'm concerned it is his territory and every man that I get is cleared through the hall, because I'm a union man myself;" when Norton cannot fill my needs "I am free to hire who I want," "I have the right to hire who I want;" "the man was ordered into another job on that ... day, and that's why;" if you hire those two men I, Norton, will "pull the ironworkers from the job;" I, Norton, will "supply the men to the job" and the president of the corporation will take whom Norton sends, not whom the president chooses;" I, Norton, will send you all the men for that job and you get their names and call me and tell me who comes on that job; "you're not out of this Local ... I wouldn't get involved in a Local matter ... all the men (I) would put on the job would come from ... Terry Norton;" "if you want to go to work out there ... you'll have to take it up with Norton ... I don't want to get into difficulties with the business agent ... I have a big job going down there;" "what are you trying to do, pick your own jobs?"; you can't go to work out there"; a corporation president "requested that Mr. Norton hire Mr. Kepner in the capacity of general ironworker foreman" and "to make Mr. Heath available .... because he is it - ;.itrol of them, as far as I know" "our union laws;" "it's the International, I suppose, that's the way we always did it, I mean." Upon the preponderance of the evidence I hold that Local 350 had an implied or tacit exclusive hiring practice, arrangement and understanding with the local employers and out-of-town employers, including Brandenberger, Speed, Hull, Keystone, and Delco.3 B. Norton's Animus Towards the Oppositionists In January 1965, five members of Respondent Local formed a slate to run for office against the incumbent officers, including Business Representative Norton and one of his sons-in-law who was president of the Local. The oppositionist slate consisted of Curran for business representative, Joseph McVey for president, Elmer Draper for vice president, Edmund Hayes and Paul Maroney for executive board. Beginning in January, this group campaigned against the incumbents. Curran testified that his campaign was directed at Norton, against "all the abuses and wrong doings and the indignities that men had to submit to in this Local to get job opportunities, it was an expose of the dictatorial manner that he was running this Union." During the campaign, McVey and Draper were disqualified from running. Oppositionists Curran and Maroney were badly beaten in the election, which occurred June 2, 1965. Oppositionists Hayes ran unopposed, was elected, but, as will be seen below, did not serve because Norton directed him not to. When Norton learned of the oppositionist slate, he telephoned Curran and said, "You're going to run for business agent, you go right ahead and you keep on running."4 He telephoned Maroney and said, "You can do what you want to ... but don't forget ... you've got a wife and a kid now ...." International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers (Waghorne-Brown Company), 144 NLRB 925, Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers (Nassau & Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc.), 123 NLRB 1393, enfd in relevant part 293 F 2d 187,48 LRRM 2743 (C A 2) 4 Although as a witness Curran was given to exaggeration most of his testimony was undenied and much of it was corroborated by other testimony In these circumstances I have relied on his testimony to a limited extent as reflected in this Decision 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD That evening at a meeting of the Local, Curran made a motion and the others on the oposition slate stood up in support of the motion. The next day, 15 minutes before Maroney's ride was due to take him to work on the second day of a 3-day job, Norton said to him over the telephone, "what's the matter, Lefty, did you miss your ride?" The fellow ironworker who was supposed to pick him up did not do so that day or the next. When Maroney chided him that he could have called him and told him he was not going to pick him up, according to undemed and credited testimony, the coworker replied that Norton had told him that he was going to send Maroney to another job. From the above evidence it appears that Norton caused Maroney's ride not to pick him up, thereby probably causing him to lose that job, in order to punish him economically, or at least to inconvenience him, for his participation in and support of the oppositionist group. The opposition slate filed objections to the election with the International union and a "hearing" was held on June 16, 1965, before an International vice president, Mr. Borrelli. The meeting was well attended by Norton supporters and by the five oppositionists. As a Norton supporter was displaying Curran's campaign sign to Borrelli, he pushed it into Curran's face. As Curran warded off the blow and a scuffle began, Curran was grabbed from behind by two men. Then Thomas Kepner, a son-in-law of Norton, began punching Curran. Soon others grabbed Kepner and held him as he threatened Curran several times that he would kill him. As Curran was about to leave the room, Norton pointed his finger at him and said, using vulgarity, that someday they were going to find Curran dead in an alley. Kepner went over to where McVey was sitting, jabbed his finger at him and, using vulgarity, threatened that if McVey got up he would be next. Just before the police arrived, Norton told Borrelli to leave and "we'll take care of these five rats our own way." Borelli refused. Having been elected to the Local executive board, Hayes attended its July meeting. Just before its August meeting, Norton called him aside and told him, "Why the hell don't you stay away from these damn meetings." Hayes did not attend that meeting of the executive board, or any meeting thereafter. After the election, Norton referred the oppositionists to a few short jobs, but they credibly testified that they got so little work that they found it necessary to leave Atlantic City to seek employment. Norton deprived them of adequate employment opportunities even though the period was one of full employment for members of Local 350. There was so much work in Respondent's local area that not only its 100 members were employed, but also about 200 members of out-of-town locals affiliated with the International union. All of them got their jobs through Norton. There were three jobsites where Norton repeatedly during the period of time covered in this proceeding offered the oppositionists, particularly Curran, job opportunities which they declined out of fear. They would tell Norton there were jobs in Atlantic City and ask him for one of those. As Norton knew, as Curran repeatedly told him, and as Curran stated at at least one union meeting and in a court proceeding, Curran feared to work on these three jobs because Norton's relatives and associates were supervisors on them, including Norton's son-in-law the president of Respondent Local, Edmund Smith, and Norton's other son-in-law, Thomas Kepner. Curran had filed charges with Local 350 against Kepner for assault and battery upon Curran at the objections-to-election hearing. Well Curran might have feared the administration forces, since he was so greatly outnumbered by them, since he had by openly opposing them caused them so much trouble, since erecting iron with cranes must be dangerous work, and since both Kepner and Norton had threatened him with death. Curran testified he feared 20 or 25 people: all members of Norton's family; his nephews, cousins, brother-in-law, sons-in-law; and officers and executive board members of the Local. The three feared jobs were some distance from Atlantic City, they were considered by the oppositionists to be "too far out in the woods" and "like going to Viet Nam without a gun." McVey testified that he had been threatened twice, once over the telephone, that he had discussed the matter with the "FBI" and had been advised to "watch where I went" on "any job that I was to take." In June 1965, at a union meeting just before the election, Kepner had jabbed his finger back and forth towards Draper and with profanity had told him, "You have a big mouth." In 1963 Norton had taken a punch at Draper and Draper had returned the blow; Norton had had Draper arrested, but the matter never came to court. Upon the above testimony, all of it undenied, I find and hold that whatever their previous history had been, Norton had animosity towards Curran and the other oppositionists as a result of their opposing him and his administration of the Local; and that under the circumstances, Norton's offering them jobs he knew they would not accept because of their fear of him and his relatives and associates was not a defense to the allegation of his discriminatory treatment of them. C. Discrimination Against Curran in December 1965, and January1966 1. Hull fob After several months of working outside of Local 350's area and not asking Norton for referral to jobs, on Thursday, December 16, 1965, Curran sent Norton a telegram saying that he was available for work. That morning or the following morning, December 17, Curran telephoned Norton and asked for work. Norton offered him one of the jobs Curran, to Norton's knowledge, feared to go on. Curran declined telling Norton why. Curran told Norton there was other work in the area and asked Norton for referral to it. Norton hung up the phone on Curran. Again on Monday morning, December 20, Curran telephoned Norton for a job. Norton asked him if he wanted to go to Milville. Curran declined, knowing nothing about any job in Milville except the one he feared to work on because Kepner was the foreman there. On each of these days, Friday and Monday, when Norton did not refer Curran to an acceptable job, Norton had a job to fill for Hull in the Atlantic City area, which he did not fill. Respondent offered no defense as to why Norton did not refer Curran to the Hull job on December 17 and 20. Upon the preponderance of the evidence, I hold that he did not do so because Curran had, with others, campaigned against Norton's administration of Respondent and had run for Norton's job in the union election. By discriminatorily failing and refusing to refer Curran to the Hull job on December 17 and 20, 1965, under the exclusive hiring practice it maintained with Hull thereby causing Hull to discriminate against Curran in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC., WKRS., LOCAL 350 Hull had had an outstanding, unfilled request of Norton for a man on its job for 3 days during the previous week, on December 15, 16, and 17. On Friday, December 17, Hull requested of Norton two men for Monday, December 20. Norton sent no one. Monday Hull again requested two men of Norton for Tuesday. Finally, on Tuesday morning, Norton referred Curran and one other to the Hull job. Curran worked 3 days on that job, December 21, 22, and 23. 2. Brandenbergerjob On Friday, December 17, and Monday, December 20, 1965, when Norton knew Curran was seeking work, Norton also had jobs to fill in the Atlantic City area for Brandenberger. Brandenberger's foreman on the job testified that on December 17 and again on December 20 he was shorthanded and asked the company's president, Fred Brandenberger, for more men. They were erecting steel with a crane, and the collective-bargaining contract required that a foreman and four men be on the job. On both days they worked with a foreman and three men. On Friday the foreman told one of the men on the job, McVey, that he was "supposed" to get more men. No reason appears why Fred Brandenberger would not have relayed his foreman's need for men to Norton, from whom Brandenberger got all his ironworkers. As a witness Brandenberger appeared to me to be aware of Norton's power and desirous of not offending it. So it seems particularly likely to me that Brandenberger would have requested the needed men from Norton on these 2 days, and I find on the entire record that he did. Respondent's defense to Norton's nonreferral of Curran to the Brandenberger job was that Norton knew that Fred Brandenberger would not hire Curran and so to have referred him would have been a futile act. The entire record does not sustain this position. On the witness stand in May 1966, Fred Brandenberger at first had forgotten that he had earlier written Local 350 that he would not hire Curran. After seeing his earlier letter he was asked if he would accept Curran if the latter were referred to his job. Quite unconvincingly Brandenberger replied, "I don't know, after he quit twice. No, I don't think I would." In fact, insofar as the record showed, Curran had quit only once, in December 1964, in protest over being demoted from foreman, the job he was hired for but which Brandenberger felt him unqualified to fulfill, to journeyman. In February 1965, shortly after Curran began his campaign to unseat Norton, the latter wrote Brandenberger, asking for certain information concerning Curran. Brandenberger's answer of February 9 contained no reference to Brandenberger's alleged unwillingness to hire Curran. A few weeks later, on April 1, still during Curran's campaign against Norton and when Norton was presumably still seeking information to use against Curran, Fred Brandenberger wrote Norton as follows: In regards to John Curran, local ironworker of Local 350. We refuse to rehire John Curran as we have done in the past. On December 13, 1964, he had quit the job in the middle of the day because he didn't want to go back to work as a Journeyman. John Curran, in our estimation, is not qualified for the Foremans job. At that time, it left the gang short-handed and We had to notify the Local business Agent to replace him. From the above, and from the impression that Fred Brandenberger made upon me as a witness: as one who 649 partly by evasions and pretending not to understand questions was trying to protect Norton' s status quo; I believe and find that Brandenberger 's above-quoted letter was written to help Norton put economic pressure upon Curran and cannot be relied on to show what Brandenberger 's attitude towards Curran would have been if Brandenberger had not been trying to help Norton. As Brandenberger was helping Norton maintain his unlawful hiring practices by depriving Curran of jobs, Brandenberger's nonhiring of Curran if the latter had been referred would have been a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. It follows that Norton's refusal to refer Curran was an attempt to cause Brandenberger to violate Section 8(a)(3) and was a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 3. Keystonejob On Monday, December 27, Keystone's outside foreman telephoned Norton a little before 7 o'clock and asked for a man. The foreman arrived at the jobsite in Atlantic City at about 8:15 and again called Norton since no man had showed up. A little after 9 o'clock the foreman telephoned his company and reported that he had not received a man but that Norton was trying to send him one, and asked whether he should wait or return to Camden, New Jersey. The job was on an elevator shaft and the foreman could not physically handle it alone. Meanwhile, Curran called Norton for job referral that morning at about 6:45 and was offered one of the jobs he feared. Curran declined, giving as the reason that, as Norton knew, Kepner was general foreman there and, as Curran stated, Kepner had animosity towards Curran because the latter had filed charges against Kepner with the Union for attempted assault and battery. Curran told Norton he knew there were other jobs available. Norton said, "nobody's bothered you yet, have they?" Curran then waited outside at his home hoping for a return call from Norton with a job offer, until about 9 o'clock. Then he left and drove around town looking for jobs that were shorthanded. He returned home between 10 and 11 o'clock and received word from his wife that Norton had called The record is silent as to what time Norton had called and talked to Mrs. Curran. Curran then called Norton, who referred him to the Keystone job. Curran went to the Keystone job, arriving sometime between 10 and 11, was hired by the foreman, and worked there for about 2 weeks. Respondent offered no defense as to why Norton did not call Curran back and offer him the Keystone job before 9 o'clock when twice before that Keystone's foreman had called Norton for a man and Norton knew that Curran was available. The record does not reveal how long after 9 o'clock it was that Norton called the Curran home, presumably to offer the Keystone job; but up until 9 o'clock Norton had been sitting on that job for 2 1/4 hours rather than refer Curran to it. Respondent's defense offered no explanation or justification for this delay and none appears in the record. Upon this evidence, which is the preponderance of the evidence in the record considered as a whole, I hold that Norton delayed offering this job to Curran for 2 1/4 hours because of Curran's election activities and his running for Norton's job; under the exclusive hiring practice Respondent maintained with Keystone thereby causing Keystone to discriminate against Curran in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section (b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. Delco job Early on Thursday morning, January 13, 1966, Curran called Norton and asked for a job. Norton replied that he didn't have a thing. That morning two new men started work at a Delco job in Atlantic City; Paul Maroney and another man. The following day two more men started to work on that job. Maroney testified without contradiction that Norton sent him to that job that morning. Delco's foreman testified that he hires through Norton. On this evidence and the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record, I hold that Norton sent two men to the Delco job on January 13, and two on January 14, and did not refer Curran, knowing that Curran was available and wanting a job. Of these four men only one was a member of Local 350. The others were from out-of-town locals. The record's only explanation for Norton's giving preference to members of other locals over Curran was because of Curran's compaign against Norton in the union election, and his running for Norton's job in the Local. Several times in the next few days Curran went to the Delco job and asked the foreman to hire him, according to the credited testimony of Curran. Curran quoted the foreman as saying, "You know I can't hire you, I got to hire through Norton." On the witness stand, the foreman, Glenn Smith, testified that "I told him I called the hall and cleared my men through the hall." On one occasion Norton was at the jobsite when Curran was there. When Norton and the foreman, Smith, were standing together Curran asked Norton for a job. He told Norton that, "here's a job here, they need men, and I called you this morning and asked for a job, you told me you don't have any work, this man's working short-handed, can I go to work here?" Norton replied, "call me tomorrow morning." Curran replied, "I'm asking you right now, in front of this man." Norton said, "I told you to call me tomorrow morning." Shortly thereafter, Norton asked Foreman Smith if he had told Curran he would give him a job. Smith told Norton that he had not but that if Norton "would send him out ... I'd give him a job." Within a few days after Curran first asked Foreman Smith for a job and asked Norton for a referral in Smith's presence, Smith hired at least five ironworkers upon referral from Local 350, but Curran was never referred to or hired on the Delco job. During this period Curran was not only trying to get Norton to refer him and trying to get Foreman Smith to hire him with or without referral, but was also in contact with Delco's head office by telephone trying, without success, to get Delco's owner to give him a job. The job Delco was doing in Atlantic City lasted 3 months. Foreman Smith testified there were no jobs available at the precise moments Curran asked him, and him and Norton together, for work. As a witness Foreman Smith was ill at ease and impressed me as trying to protect Respondent's position. In any case this testimony fails to account for Norton's failure ever to refer Curran to this long job and for Delco's failure ever to hire him without Norton's permission. Upon the above evidence and the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record, I find and hold that Respondent's discriminatory failure and refusal to refer Curran to the Delco job on January 13, 14, and subsequent days, under the exclusive hiring practice it maintained with Delco thereby causing Delco to discriminate against Curran in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, was a further violation by Respondent Union of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 5. Speed job A few days after the union election in June 1965, Robert Tate, who was working for Speed and who by his demeanor impressed me as a credible witness, called Norton for men for the Speed job. Norton replied there were no men, and asked whether anyone had been "out around that job." Tate replied that Curran, Hayes, and Draper had been out there campaigning (presumably before the election of June 2). Norton instructed Tate not to hire Curran and the others. Norton then issued the instructions , set forth above, that he would send all the men for that job. Under the exclusive hiring practice Respondent maintained with Speed , Norton's instructions not to hire Curran was an attempt to cause Speed to refrain from hiring Curran in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A). D. Coercion of Tate In early March 1966, Robert Tate went to Norton's home to pay his working assessment. This was shortly after Norton had received the complaint in Case 4-CB-1204, which alleged that in June 1965 Norton had directed the successor to Speed through Tate not to hire Curran. Norton showed Tate the complaint where his name appeared and accused him of making a statement to the Board. Tate denied this although it was a fact and Norton called him a liar. Tate pleaded that he didn't want to get involved. Norton then threatened: I've been taking care of you around here ... for six years, and ... if this is the way you are going to act ... I know who my friends are. Some years before, when Norton was pressing Tate to give him a statement against Draper, Norton had threatened: If you want to work around here you do as you are told. Or you won't be working around here. All the jobs Tate had had in the Atlantic City area, for 6 years had come to him through Norton. In view of this history and Norton's control of hiring through Respondent's exclusive hiring arrangement and practice, Norton's March 1965 remark, ending with "I know who my friends are" amounted to a threat to deprive Tate of future employment because he had given testimony under the Act, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. That evening over the telephone both Norton and the general manager of Speed tried to persuade Tate to make a statement to a lawyer that the statements he had previously made to the NLRB "were a lie." The next day Tate called Norton and told him he was not going to see the lawyer. Tate then left Atlantic City to seek employment elsewhere. He returned in a few weeks. The General Counsel contended and proved, that on his return and his reporting to Norton for work early March 29 and 30, Norton referred Tate to Speed for a job knowing there was no work for Tate or that Tate would not be permitted to work. According to Tate's credited testimony, on the 29th, Norton offered him only a job where Kepner was general ironworker foreman, which Tate did not accept. Norton had a request for only one man that day, INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC., WKRS., LOCAL 350 and he filled the job with a man named Guinaugh.' The following morning Norton again offered Tate only that job. During the conversation Norton said "I give you a job ... you tell them rat friends of yours that I gave you a job." But Tate's call was on the late side (around 7:20 a.m., whereas men began to call around 6:30) and seven new men worked 8 hours on that job that day, beginning at 8 a.m., all sent to the job by Norton. The seven new men had been requested by Kepner the previous afternoon. On this evidence, I find that when Norton sent Tate to that job that second morning Norton knew that he had already sent the requested number of men to that job and that there was, therefore, no job for Tate to fill. Tate had a 45-minute ride out to the job. He arrived between 9 and 10, and was rejected by Kepner on the ground that the vacancies were filled, Tate was late, and there was no job for him. Tempers rose, loud words and vulgarities were exchanged, and Kepner and two others accompanied Tate to his car. Tate was not one of the oppositionist group and there was no hard proof that Norton put Kepner up to giving Tate a hard time that morning or forseeably knew or expected what would happen. In the context in which he used the phrase "rat friends" clearly referred to the Board's Regional Office to whom Norton had accused Tate of making an affidavit a few weeks before. Norton's reference to the Regional Office in this way, shows that Norton, in referring Tate to a job he knew was filled, was acting in reprisal against Tate for having assisted the Board, which was employee activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. Norton's action for this purpose amounted to restraint and coercion of Tate for exercising his rights under Section 7, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The following morning, according to Tate's credible testimony, Tate called Norton and asked, "being as your fun and games are over with, are you going to give me a job?" Norton then told Tate to go back to his own Local (in Buffalo, New York), that "I have no more need for you around here, no more use for you around here," and Norton hung up. Although Norton denied this conversation, Norton was a very weak and unconvincing witness and I do not credit his denial. His words to Tate amounted to a clear statement that he would have no more work for Tate in Local 350's area. As Norton had absolute control over hiring in the area this statement was a coercive statement, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 5 The employer's unimpeached written record showed that Guinaugh worked 8 hours March 29 and 8 hours March 30 Eight hours was the normal workday b Cf J J Hagerty, Inc., 139 NLRB 633, enfd in part, 321 F 2d 130,53 LRRM 2754 (C A 2) 7 Cf. Skouras Theaters Corporation, 155 NLRB 157 , also J J Hagerty, Inc , supra " I do not, as recommended in the General Counsel's brief, recommend backpay for any others of the oppositionists who may V. THE REMEDY 651 Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. With the implied approval and cooperation of local and out-of-town employers, Respondent, through Norton, operates and controls a mandatory exclusive hiring and referral system in practice, and Norton operates it discriminatorily. In order to ensure that hereafter, if a nondiscriminatory referral is to be maintained, Respondent operates such system in a nondiscriminatory way, I shall recommend that the Regional Director or his agents work with Local 350 to correct present practices and to work out ways and means, approved by the Regional Director, to ensure the lawful operation of such system in the future.6 In order to protect the oppositionists and Tate from referrals only to the jobs they fear to work on, these ways and means should include provisions whereby available ironworkers may, on any given day, in the order that they contact the Local to report their availability that day, chose from among all jobs available that day for which they qualify. In addition I shall recommend that Respondent keep and retain for a minimum of 3 years permanent records of its hiring and referral operations which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis on which each referral is made. These records are to be made available to the Board's Regional Director or his agent. The permanent records shall indicate the date and time of all employer requests for workers and the type of qualifications requested. The permanent records shall include out-of-work or availability lists, indicating the date and time each individual requests a referral and the jobs for which he is qualified.7 In addition I shall recommend that Respondent submit to the Board's Regional Director quarterly reports concerning the employment of John Curran, Joseph McVey, Elmer Draper, Edmund Hayes, Paul Maroney, and Robert Tate. These reports shall show, concerning each of these men, the dates and times that he applied to the Union for jobs, the jobs he was referred to and the dates and times of such referrals, and the length of time he served on jobs during that quarter year. Respondent shall file such quarterly reports with the Regional Director no later than 10 days after the close of the first full calendar quarter following issuance of this Decision. The obligation to submit such quarterly reports will cease after four such quarterly reports have been made. Respondent having caused Hull, Keystone, and Delco to discriminate against Curran, I recommend that Respondent make Curran whole for any loss of pay he" suffered by this discrimination, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to what he would have earned: On the Hull job on December 17 and 20; on the Keystone job December 27 if he worked on it all day, less what he actually earned on it that day; on the Delco job from January 13 until the end of that job. The backpay have been discriminated against by the application of the hiring practice Respondent was not appraised prior to or at the hearing that the General Counsel was intending to litigate any discrimination but Curran's This case is distinguished from Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers (Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc), 123 NLRB 1393, enfd. in part 293 F 2d 187, 48 LRRM 2743, in that there the charges and complaints alleged wrongdoing against numerous employees, whereas here only two employees were named, Curran and Tate 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD obligation of Respondent shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I recommend further that Respondent, and also Hull, Keystone, and Delco, make available to the Board or its agents on request, payroll and other records in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of backpay due. As Respondent has no hiring hall where notices to members can be posted, I recommend that Respondent mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix" to each member of the Local at his last-known residential address. In order that employers may know that Respondent will operate any hiring or referral system in a nondiscriminatory way, I recommend that Respondent mail a copy of said Appendix to each employer, local and nonlocal, to whom Respondent has referred workers at anytime during the last 3 years. The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the Order is coextensive with the threat. In order therefore to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the preponderance of the evidence, and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Members of the Employers Association, including Brandenberger, Nugent, and until August 24, 1965, Speed, Pleasantville, and also Hull, Keystone, and Delco, are each employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 350, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By operating discriminatorily, since June 1965, a mandatory exclusive hiring system and practice it maintains with local and out-of-town employers, Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 4. By operating said hiring system and practice discriminatorily against John Curran in December 1965 and January and successive months of 1966, Respondent has caused Hull, Keystone, and Delco to discriminate against Curran and has attempted to cause Brandenberger and Speed to discriminate against Curran in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and Respondent thereby has violated and is violating Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 5. In early March 1966 and on March 31, 1966, by threatening Robert Tate with economic reprisal because he engaged in protected Section 7 activity, Respondent further violated and is violating Section 8(b)(1)(A). 6. On March 29 and 30, 1966, by referring Robert Tate to a job it knew was filled in reprisal because Tate had engaged in protected Section 7 activity , Respondent further violated and is violating Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce 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 the entire record in the case considered as a whole, it is recommended that International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 350, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Operating discriminatorily against any employee, any mandatory exclusive hiring system and practice it maintains with local or out-of-town employers. (b) Operating any such hiring system and practice discriminatorily against John Curran. (c) Referring Robert Tate, or any other employee, to a job it knows is filled, in reprisal, because the employee gives testimony under the Act or assists the Board. (d) Causing or attempting to cause Hull, Keystone, Delco, Brandenberger, Pleasantville, Speed, or any other employer to discriminate against John Curran or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (e) Threatening employees with economic reprisal because they give testimony under the Act or assist the Board. (f) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees or applicants in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except in the manner permitted by 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 I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) If the mandatory exclusive hiring and referral practice is to be maintained, cooperate fully with and achieve in conjunction with the Board's Regional Director or his agents, ways and means, approved by the Regional Director, to ensure the lawful operation of such practice. These ways and means shall include provisions that permit employees to choose, in the order that they contact the Local to report their availabilty that day, from among all the jobs available that day for which they qualify. (b) Keep and retain, for a minimum of 3 years, permanent records of its hiring and referral operations which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis on which each referral is made. These records shall indicate the date and time of all employer request for workers and the type of qualifications requested. These records shall also indicate the date and time each employee requests a referral and the jobs for which he is qualified. These records shall also include such other records as the Regional Director deems necessary to administer a nondiscriminatory hiring and referral system or to fulfill his obilgations pursuant to this Decision. Respondent shall make these records, and any other records relating to the hiring and referral practice, available for inspection, upon request, to the Regional Director or his agents, at all reasonable times for a period of 3 years beginning with the issuance of this Decision. (c) Submit four quarterly reports to the Regional Director, due 10 days after the close of the calendar INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, ETC., WKRS., LOCAL 350 653 quarter, the due date of the first report being January 10, 1967, concerning the employment of John Curran, Joseph McVey, Elmer Draper, Edmund Hayes, Paul Maroney, and Robert Tate. Such reports shall include the dates and number of job applications made to the Union by these employees, the dates and number of actual jobs referred to these employees by the Union, and the length of such employment during such quarter. (d) Make whole John Curran for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent' s discrimination against him in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (e) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the rights of John Curran under the terms of these recommendations. (1) Mail a copy of the attached notice hereto and marked "Appendix"" to each member of the Local at his last- known residential address, and to each employer, local and nonlocal, to whom Respondent has referred employees at any time during the last 3 years. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 10 " In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is 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 " 10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS AND To ALL EMPLOYERS To WHOM WE REFER EMPLOYEES FOR EMPLOYMENT 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT operate discriminatorily against any employee, any mandatory exclusive hiring system and practice we maintain with local or out-of-town employers. WE WILL NOT operate any such hiring system and practice discriminatorily against John Curran. WE WILL NOT refer Robert Tate, or any other employee, to a job we know is filled, in reprisal because he has given testimony under the Act or has assisted the Board. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Hull Erecting Co., Keystone Wire & Ironworks, Inc., Delco Steel Fabricators , Inc., Brandenberger Iron Co., Inc., Pleasantville Steel Company, Incorporated, successor to Speed Iron Company, or any other employer, to discriminate against John Curran or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten Robert Tate, or any other employee, with economic reprisal because he gives testimony under the Act or assists the Board. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except in the manner permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. If we decide to continue our mandatory exclusive hiring system and practice, WE WILL cooperate fully with and achieve in conjunction with the Board's Regional Director or his agent , ways and means, approved by the Regional Director , to insure the lawful operation of such practice. These ways and means will include provisions that permit employees to choose, in the order that they contact the Local to report their availability that day, from among all the jobs available that day for which they qualify. WE WILL keep and retain , for a minimum of 3 years, permanent records of our hiring and referral operation which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis on which each referral is made. These records shall indicate the date and time of all employer requests for workers and the type of qualifications requested. These records shall also indicate the date and time each employee requests a referral and the jobs for which he is qualified. These records shall also include such other records as the Regional Director deems necessary to administer a nondiscriminatory hiring and referral system, or to fulfill his obligations pursuant to this Decision. WE WILL make the above records and any other records relating to our hiring and referral practice available for inspection, upon request, to the Regional Director or his agents at all reasonable times for a period of 3 years beginning with the issuance of this Decision. WE WILL submit four quarterly reports to the Regional Director concerning the employment of John Curran, Joseph McVey, Elmer Draper, Edmund Hayes, Paul Maroney, and Robert Tate. WE WILL make whole John Curran for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against him in accordance with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner's Decision. WE WILL mail a copy of this notice to each member of Local 350 at his last-known residential address, and to each employer, local and nonlocal, to whom we have referred employees or applicants at any time during the last 3 years. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 350 (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700 Bankers from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, or covered by any other material. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 597-7617, If members have any question concerning this notice or Area Code 215. compliance with its provisions, they may communicate