Intl. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 648

66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, Local 648 (Foothill Electrical Corporation) and Brack Collier, An Individual . Case 9-CB-1585 April 21, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On November 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 Exam- iner 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete the references to "Foothill Electric Corpora- tion" from paragraphs 1(b) and 2(e) of the Trial Examin- er's Recommended Order. 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order: "Notify the aforementioned Association, in writing, with a copy to Brack Collier, that the Respondent has no objection to Collier's employment, in accordance with the valid provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent Union and the Cin- cinnati Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Associa- tion, Hamilton Division, and will not discriminate in his selection for employment or the employment of anyother job applicant who is not a member of the Respondent of any other union." 3. Substitute the attached Notice in place and stead of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. NOTICE To ALL JOB APPLICANTS USING OUR HIRING HALL, WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFL-CIO, LOCAL 648 POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and orders that the Respondent Union, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 648, Ham- ilton, Ohio, its officers, agents, and representatives, ' These findings and conclusions are based, in part , upon the Trial Examiner 's credibility determinations to which the Respondent Union excepts On the basis of our careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence, and we find no basis for disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) 2 We conclude, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent Union, in the operation of its exclusive hiring hall, violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by refusing to refer Brack Collier for employment on December 9, 1968, because he was not a union member International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, (Considine Distribut- ing Co ), 166 NLRB 915, Carpenters Union Local 180, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Golden State Runway and Engineering Company), 162 NLRB 950 We therefore find it unnecessary to adopt the Trial Examiner' s further finding that the Respondent refused to refer Collier for employment to a specific employer, namely, the Foothill Electrical Corporation We shall modify the Recommended Order as requested by the Respondent to provide that future referrals shall be made in accordance with the valid provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement , WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to refer any nonunion member to a job on the same basis as a union member, as provided in the valid provisions of our collective-bargaining agreement with the Cincin- nati Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Asso- ciation, Hamilton Division. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause any employer to deny employment to any applicant or employment because he is not a member of our Union or any other union, in accordance with the valid provisions of our collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL reimburse Brack Collier for any loss of earnings suffered by him because of our failure and refusal to refer him for work. WE WILL notify the aforementioned Association, in writing, with a copy to Brack Collier, that we have no objection to Collier's employment, in accordance with the valid provisions of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement between our Union and the Cincinnati Chapter, National Electrical Contrac- tors Association, Hamilton Division, and WE WILL NOT discriminate in his selection for employment or the employment of any other job applicant who is not a member of our Union or any other union. 182 NLRB No. 4 INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 648 Dated By i INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFL-CIO, LOCAL 648 (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION SAMUEL M. SINGER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was tried before me at Dayton, Ohio, on May 26 and August 5, 1969, pursuant to a charge filed on January 13 and complaint issued on March 27, 1969.' The com- plaint alleged that Respondent, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(a) of the Act, discriminatorily refused to refer the Charging Party for employment to Foothill Electric Corporation and other employers with whom Local 648 had a collective agreement because the Charg- ing Party was not a union member.2 All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were received from General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record of the case3 and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION; LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED At all material times Respondent Local 648 has been party to a collective agreement with the Association ' On July 8, 1969, I granted General Counsel 's motion to reopen the record (which had been closed on May 26, 1969) for the purpose of receiving into evidence a copy of the collective-bargaining contract between Local 648 and the Cincinnati Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association , Hamilton Division (herein called the Associa- tion) The July 8 order also provided for a supplemental hearing to be held on August 5, 1969 (See infra B, 4 ) Y The complaint , as issued , also covered the charge filed by the Charging Party (Collier) against another union (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 82) in Case 9-CB-1586 At the hearing, I granted Local 82's motion to sever that case from the instant case (9-CB-1585) on the ground that the two cases involved separate and autonomous unions with different areas of jurisdiction, different employers and areas in which the claimed violation occurred, different incidents and dates of alleged unfair labor practices, and no claim of concerted action or collusion by the two Unions in the commission of the violations alleged See also my decision in Case 9-CB-1586, issued this date 3 Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated October 22, 1969 67 (see fn. 1, supra) of which Foothill Electric Corporation was a member. Foothill is a California corporation, engaged in the business of electrical construction work on various projects in several States, including a project at Middletown, Ohio. During the past representative calendar year Foothill had a direct outflow into interstate commerce of goods and services valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Foothill is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction here is proper. Respondent Local 648 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Respondent's collective agreement with the Associa- tion provides that Local 648 "shall be the sole and exclusive source of referrals of applicants for employ- ment." The Union is required to "select and refer" applicants on a nondiscriminatory basis from a register of applicants. The contract sets up four "groups" by means of which applicants are classified on the basis of experience, an examination (given by an IBEW local), residence in the area, and length of employment under the collective-bargaining agreement. Those meeting requirements maximally fall into Group I (the top priority group) and those meeting the least stringent requirements minimally fall into Group IV (the lowest priority group).4 Charging Party Collier was employed by Foothill Elec- tric (an Association member) at its Middletown, Ohio, project in August 1966. He worked as a "white ticket" or nonunion journeyman wireman until October 1967 when he became a member of Local 1438, an IBEW affiliate with headquarters in Magna, Utah. On acquiring his Local 1438 card, Collier voluntarily terminated his employment at Foothill "to clear through the Hall" and be referred to Foothill as a union employee.' Collier credibly testified, without contradiction," that when he visited Local 648's office (in Hamilton, Ohio), on October 16, 1967, Business Agent McClure asked him to show his Local 1438 dues receipts. Collier produced them and McClure wrote out "a referral to Foothill Electric" slip. McClure then said, "Well, you had better hang on to it [the Local 1438 card] because it will mean a mountain of money to you."7 Collier continued to 4 The complaint does not allege that the exclusive referral system (including the classification system governing the order of dispatch of applicants for employment) is unlawful 5 Collier testified that he quit at the suggestion of Jim Flick, whom he described as the Local 648 steward on the Foothill job According to Collier, Flick promised to obtain immediate clearance through Local 648 Business Agent McClure so that he would "be back into work the next day and not lose no pay at all " At the hearing I reserved decision on Respondent's motion to strike this testimony on the ground that General Counsel failed to establish that Flick was a steward or agent of Respondent I now grant Respondent's motion and place no reliance on the indicated testimony fi Testimony (relating to an event in the pre-Section 10(b), 6-month period) admitted only as background ' In completing Local 648's "Application for Referral, "Collier listed his prior experience, including at least 4 years of electrical construction 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work for Foothill until June 28 or 29, 1968, when he decided to leave Foothill for Houston, Texas. On July 1, 1968, Collier visited Respondent's office and asked Business Agent McClure for a letter to assist him in obtaining a job at Houston. McClure wrote the following letter of recommendation: This will introduce Brack Collier of Local Union 1438 I.B.E.W. who has worked as a'Journeyman Wireman in the jurisdiction of Local Union #648 for the past two and one half [2-1/2] years. His work has been highly satisfactory as a Jour- neyman Wireman. Around August 1, 1968, Collier returned from Texas and obtained employment in the Dayton, Ohio, area under the jurisdiction of IBEW Local 82. He was laid off by Hughes-Bechtol Corporation (in the Dayton area) on December 6, 1968. In the meantime, in September 1968, Local 1438 ref- used to accept Collier's dues payment and canceled his Local 1438 membership. In a letter of October 5, 1968, Local 1438 Financial Secretary Taylor explained to Collier that he (Taylor) "was in error" in admitting Collier to membership "to begin with" since Collier had not been working in the area under Local 1438's jurisdiction. Collier credibly testified that on December 9, 1968 (3 days after his layoff by Hughes-Bechtol Corporation), he telephoned Local 648 Business Agent McClure, told him that he was out of a job, and asked if he had "any openings." When McClure said that he heard Collier "had difficulty with [his] ticket," Collier agreed that "that was right." McClure then said that Local 648 did not refer "white ticket men [nonunion applicants] out of their hall." When Collier asked about Foothill Electric needing help, McClure replied that "their call had been filled." About 2 days later (December 11 or 12), Collier tele- phoned McClure that Foothill Electric had advised him that "they did too have a call in for men." McClure said, "I told you that Foothill's order had been filled." When Collier asked if he "could just give [him] a few weeks' work, just until after the first of the year, then if he wanted [him] to [he] would quit," McClure replied that "there was nothing he could do." In the same conversation, Collier asked McClure if he could work for a contractor friend (Harvey Price) if the latter called the union hall and asked for Collier by name. McClure responded that Price "can't choose his men. If he calls the hall he'll have to take whoever I have available to send out."" work While stating (in his application) that he was `willing to take a qualifying journeyman wireman examination to be conducted by Local 648, he also claimed (contrary to fact) that he had already passed one given by Local 1438 " The findings in the last two paragraphs concerning the Collier- McClure conversations of December 9 and II or 12 are based on the testimony of Collier, who impressed me as an essentially credible witness In crediting Collier, I have not overlooked (1) his inaccurate statement in his October 16, 1967 (Local 648) application for referral, to the effect that he had passed a Local 1438 job qualifying examination (supra, fn 7), and (2) his failure to specifically mention the December I i or 12 conversation in his prehearing statement I regard as significant B. Conclusions 1. It is undisputed that the collective agreement between Respondent (Local 648) and the Association contains an exclusive hiring hall clause . It is also undis- puted that under that clause Repondent was under a legal obligation to refer job applicants to Association members, including Foothill Electric , on a nondiscrimina- tory basis, without regard to membership or lack of membership in the Union . See Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Los Angeles -Seattle Motor Express] v. N.L.R.B., 365 U. S. 667; Local 269, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Mercer County Division, Electrical Contractors Association), 149 NLRB 768, enfd . 357 F.2d 51, 55 (C.A.3); International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 340, AFL-CIO (Walsh Construction Company), 131 NLRB 260, enfd. 301 F.2d 824 (C.A. 9). The basic issue here is whether Respondent's December 9 refusal to refer Collier to Foothill was based on the fact that Collier was not a member of Respondent or its sister Local 1438. "It is well established that both the union and the employer violate the statute if they commit discriminatory acts against specific employees or applicants for employment in the operation of a hiring hall agreement or arrangement which in itself is lawful." Pan Atlantic Steamship Com- pany, 132 NLRB 868, 871. 2. The record shows that , before Local 648 Business Agent McClure first cleared Collier for employment in October 1967, McClure requested Collier to produce evidence of union membership . When Collier displayed his Local 1438 dues receipts , McClure wrote out "a referral to Foothill Electric," telling Collier that he "had better hang on" to his membership "because it will mean a mountain of money to you." Collier remained a Local 1438 member until September 1968, when Local Respondent's unexplained failure to call its own agent, McClure, to contradict or give his version of the incidents to which Collier testified Cf N L R B v Wallick & Schwalm, 198 F 2d 477, 482 (C A 3), NLRB v Kalof Pulp & Paper Corp , 290 F 2d 447, 451 (C A 9) (Nor did Respondent call any of the employers involved (Foothill and Price) to rebut Collier's testimony ) Respondent called- (at the supplemental hearing) only one witness, its secretary, Phyllis Apgar, in an effort to impugn Collier's credibility However, I regard her testimony as vague and unreliable According to Mrs Apgar, in "the first party of December" 1968 she overheard a "loud" conversation in McClure's office (adjacent to her own) wherein Collier allegedly said that "he wasn't going to fill out an application because it wouldn't do him any good anyway " She admitted that she herself did not speak to Collier, that Collier did not announce or otherwise identify himself, that she did not see him enter the office (she allegedly only saw him leave it), that she only heard the few quoted words, and that as many as 30 to 35 employees visit the union office in a morning According to Apgar, it was McClure who "told [her] who it was" that spoke with him in the office Again I note that McClure did not take the stand to give his version of the incident On the other hand, Collier frankly and unequivocally testified that he had not been to the union office in December-indeed not since McClure had given him the July I, 1968, letter of recommendation for a job in Texas (supra), that he never saw Mrs Apgar before the hearing, that his December 9 and II or 12 conversations with McClure were by telephone, and that McClure on those times did not request him to fill out any application No satisfactory explanation has been advanced as to why Collier, who was unemployed and eager for employment, would refuse to fill out an application if such step could mean the difference between working and not working INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL 648 69 1438 canceled his membership because he had not been working in its territorial jurisdiction. On December 9, 1968, when Collier again sought referral through Respondent, McClure, noting Collier's "difficulty with [his] ticket," told Collier that Respondent was not refer- ring "white ticket men [nonunion applicants] out of their [hiring] hall." This, then, appears' to be one of those "rare" cases where there is "direct evidence of a purpose to violate the statute." N.L.R.B. v. Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers, Hoisting and Porta- ble Local No. 101, [Sub Grade Engineering Co.], 216 F.2d 161•, 164 (C.A. 8), quoting from Hartsell Mills Co. v. N. L.R.B.,, 11I F. 2d 291, 293 (C. A. 4). 3. Respondent's contention (br. p. 15) that no finding of discrimination has been established "since the record contains no evidence that there were in fact any jobs open for referrals on the particular dates in question" is rejected. The record shows that on December 9, when Collier asked Business Agent McClure if there were "any openings," McClure indicated that he could not refer him because Respondent did not clear nonunion applicants and not because jobs were unavailable. Hence, it was unnecessary to show that jobs were available on the particular day when Collier requested referral. See N.L.R.B. v. Local 803, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, [Harbor Ship Maintenance Co.], 218 F.2d 299, 302 (C.A. 3); N.L.R:B. v. Lummus Co., 210' F.2d 377, 380-381 (C.A. 5).9 Nor is there merit in Respondent's suggestion (br. pp. 16-18) that the instant case is comparable to other Board cases 19 where unions were absolved of violations for refusing to•refer employ- ees because the job applicants failed to comply with union rules requiring them to pass qualifying examina- tions. The fact is that here Respondent's refusal to 'refer Collier was not predicated on that ground. "It is the `true purpose' or 'real motive' in hiring or firing that constitutes the test" (Local 357, Teamsters v. Local N.L.R.B. [Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express], 365 U.S. 667, 675) and, so long as a reason for referral or discharge is one proscribed by the Act, it is immaterial that other valid reasons for the action may also be present. N.L.R.B. v. Local Union. No. 38, United Association of Journeymen, [D. I. Chadbourne, Inc.], 388 F.2d 679, 680 (C.A. 6). Furthermore, McClure's, July 1, 1968, letter recommending Collier for employment in an area outside of Respondent's jurisdiction (Texas) demon- strates that McClure had regarded Collier as a "highly 9 Cases relied on by Respondent (br p 15) are distinguishable Thus, in Pan Atlantic Steamship Company, 132 NLRB 868, all applicants were referred in a nondiscriminatory manner, irrespective of union membership or nonmembership In Kearney Convention Center, Inc , 169 NLRB 264, it was found that the employer's refusal to hire a striker was predicated on lack of work and not a discriminatory rule against hiring strikers, the Board expressly distinguished the situation from Shawnee Industries, Inc , 140 NLRB .1451, 1453, where it "found that the absence of vacancies did not absolve the Employer from violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act where the record clearly showed that the employer refused to consider certain job applicants because the individuals involved were known union adherents " " International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers (Catalytic Construction Co ), 164 NLRB 916, Local 367, IBEW (National Electrical Contractors Assn ), 134 NLRB 132, 135 satisfactory . . . Journeyman Wireman" while he was a union member. Under all the circumstances , I find and conclude that it was Collier's lack of union membership-not job unavailability or failure to qualify for jobs-that prompted and was the true reason for Respondent's refusal to refer Collier for employment . Respondent's conduct thereby constituted a clear violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act 4. Respondent in its brief (pp. 11-14) renews a proce- dural contention already disposed of at the hearing. As noted supra, fn. 1, on July 8, 1969, I issued an order granting, General Counsel's motion to reopen the record to receive evidence and reopened the proceeding for a supplemental hearing. Respondent contends that "General Counsel's request for a supplemental hearing was improper." As Respondent states, the hearing was closed on May 26, 1969, after counsel for General Counsel complet- ed his case. Respondent called no witnesses and adduced no documentary evidence, resting its case after I had denied its motion to dismiss for "failure of proof on behalf of the Charging Party." On June 6, 1969, General Counsel moved to reopen the record for the purpose of introducing a copy of the collective agreement between Respondent and the Association, alleging that the document was pertinent to the issues and through inadvertence had not previously been offered. After due consideration, I granted the application, but, to avoid the possibility of prejudice to Respondent, reopened the proceeding for a supplemental hearing, held on August 5, 1969 ', for the purpose of affording Respondent opportunity to present such evidence and contentions as it considered necessary and appropriate. While not unmindful of the inconvenience and possible expense of a'reopened hearing, I concluded that under all the circumstances this procedure 'was in promotion of the policies of the Act and. in the public interest. As explained in the July 8, 1969, order: While agreeing with Respondent's contention that Counsel for General Counsel was neglectful in fail- ing to adduce the evidence in question (a collective- bargaining agreement) during the hearing, I am nevertheless of the view that under all the circum- stances the granting of General Counsel's motion is in promotion of the policies of the Act and in the public interest. Parties 'should be mindful that this is not a private lawsuit, but a public proceeding to vindicate public rights. The public interest must thus be balanced against any unconve- nience and possible expense that Respondent may suffer from a reopened hearing. Respondent is a purported signatory to the proffered collective agreement, the agreement was expressly referred to in the complaint, and it is clearly material to the issues raised. To deny admission into evidence of this. document on the ground of inadvertence of counsel would exalt technicality over substance. 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD So technical and narrow a view would be inconsis- tent with the public interest here." Cf. National Licorice Co.,v. N.L.R.B., 309 U.S. 350, 361-364; Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 265-269; see also Central Freight Lines, Inc., 133 NLRB 393, 394, In. 1. In any event, Respondent has shown no legal prejudice; it has been afforded full opportunity at the supplemental hearing to adduce evidence and to meet General Coun- sel's case. I conclude that Respondent's refusal to refer Collier to Foothill Electric Corporation on December 9, 1968, was violative of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(a) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discriminatorily refusing to refer the Charging Party (Brack Collier) for employment on December 9, 1968, to Foothill Electric Corporation (a member of the Association with whom Respondent has an exclusive referral agreement) because Collier was not a union member, Respondent has caused employer discrimina- tion against an employee in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and 1(A) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma- tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall further recommend that Respondent notify Foothill Electric, the Association, and Brack Collier, in writing, that it will not discriminate against Collier or any other job applicant in selecting or referring them for employment through its hiring hall procedures, because of nonunion membership. I shall also recom- mend that Respondent make Brack Collier whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against him. The amount of backpay shall be comput- ed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Since the unlawful conduct of Respondent indicates a purpose to limit the lawful rights of employees, and the danger of its continued and further commission is reasonably foreseeable, I shall also recommend that Respondent cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause any employer to deny employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and " By order dated August 7, 1969, the Board denied Respondent's request for special permission to appeal from the July 8 order pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 648, its,officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall: , 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Denying employment or referral to employment to any employee or potential employee because he is not a member of any union. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Foothill Electric Corporation, the Cincinnati Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association, Hamilton Division, or any of its members, to deny employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Brack Collier for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Foothill Electric Corporation, as well as the aforementioned Association, in writing, with a copy to Brack Collier, that Respondent has no objection to Collier's employment and will not discriminate in his selection for employment or the employment of any other job applicant who is not a member of Respond- ent or any other union. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records pertaining to employment through its hiring halls and all records relevant and necessary to compli- ance with above paragraph (a). (d) Post at its business office, hiring halls, and meeting places copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's official representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be aintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, it , conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices 12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " INTL . BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 648 are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (e) Mail signed copies of the attached notice to Foot- hill Electric Corporation and the aforementioned Associ- ation for posting, it or they being willing, at its or their business office, including (if applicable) the Middle- town, Ohio, jobsite, and elsewhere within the geograph- ical area of Respondent's jurisdiction or operations 71 (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." 13 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 "