Southern Steveodoring Co., Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Southern Stevedoring Company, Inc. and Willie B. Edwards. Case 15-CA -6365 June 12, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On January 10, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and, in support of the Deci- sion, the General Counsel refiled its brief to the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge,3 and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Southern Stevedoring Company, Inc., Mobile, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the request for oral argument by Respondent is hereby de- nied. 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings with re- spect to the testimony of Willie B. Edwards. inasmuch as the Administrative Law Judge found that his testimony had "the ring of truth" and was partial- ly corroborated by McKinley Franklin, an employee witness at the hearing. ' In order to make the Administrative Law Judge's remedy conform more closely with his recommended Order, we will delete the last clause thereof which begins "and was not physically able . . ." DECISION ABRAHAM FRANK. Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on February 10, 1977, and the com- plaint, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) (2), and (3) of the Act, issued on May 6, 1977. The hearing was held on June 6 and 7, 1977, at Mobile, Alabama. The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs, which have been duly considered. Respondent, a Florida corporation, is engaged in the business of providing stevedoring services at the Port of Mobile in Mobile, Alabama. The answer admits, and I find, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The issue in this case is whether Respondent refused em- ployment to several longshoremen because they were un- willing to become members of Local 1516, International Association of Longshoremen, hereinafter called Local 1516, or to sign service charge checkoff authorization forms for that Union. This is the second complaint issued by the General Counsel alleging unlawful conduct by Respondent's gang foremen in the interest of Local 1516 at the Port of Mobile. The Board's decision with respect to the first complaint issued on June 29, 1977, and is reported at 230 NLRB 600. In that case the Board found that Foreman Kossuth Bumpers threatened Willie B. Edwards, the Charging Party in the instant case, with delay in being paid and loss of employment if he did not sign a Local 1516 card. Foremen Bedford Mathews I and Aaron Green 2 also threatened em- ployees with loss of employment if they did not sign cards for Local 1516. Bumpers unlawfully interrogated employ- ees, including Edwards, as to whether they had signed cards for Local 1516. Other gang foremen, including Fore- man Howard Johnson,3 unlawfully distributed Local 1516 cards to their gang members. In the instant case the General Counsel alleges that Foremen Johnson, Bumpers, Mathews, and Carache Small did, in fact, deny employment to Edwards because Ed- wards was not a member of Local 1516. The General Counsel also alleges that Foreman C. Small denied em- ployment to his brothers, Herbert and Ernest Small, be- cause they too were not members of Local 1516. Local 1516 and Local 1410 are sister Locals of the Inter- national Longshoremen's Association. Prior to June 1975, Local 1410 represented all longshoremen employed on the general cargo dock and those employed by Respondent on the banana dock. Local 1410 has a collective-bargaining agreement with the Mobile Steamship Association, a multi- port group of shippers and stevedores, who operate at the Port of Mobile. Respondent is not a member of this Asso- ciation. It contracts by itself. As noted by Judge Stevenson in the prior case, the crux of this dispute is essentially an intraunion affair, involving a complicated relationship between Local 1516, Local 1410 and their parent district and international organizations. Judge Stevenson has set forth in some detail the available evidence of events leading and subsequent to the charter- ing of Local 1516 by the ILA on April 7, 1976. That charter gave Local 1516 jurisdiction over the work of banana han- dling at the Port of Mobile. On May 28, 1976, Respondent ;Also known as Mathew Baldwin or Baldy. Also known as Ellzie Green. I Also known as Tightrope. 236 NLRB No. 103 860 SOUTHERN STEVEDORING COMPANY and the newly chartered Local 1516 executed a contract covering employees engaged in the work of loading and unloading cargo at the Port of Mobile, Alabama. The con- tract contains a dues-checkoff clause, but no union-securi- ty or hiring hall provisions. Officials of Local 1410 have vigorously opposed the es- tablishment of Local 1516 as the representative of Respon- dent's employees. Nelva Simon, secretary-treasurer of Lo- cal 1410, filed the charge in the prior case, alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(2) by, inter alia, en- tering into and giving effect to its contract with Local 1516 and that Local 1516 violated Section 8(bXI)(A) for the same reasons. The Board affirmed Judge Stevenson's con- clusion that Respondent lawfully recognized Local 1516 and dismissed the complaint entirely as to that Union. Since May 1976, officials of Local 1516 and, in some instances, Respondent's foremen, have asked longshore- men employed by Respondent to sign a card or a blank service charge authorization form for Local 1516. In this case, as in the prior case, Respondent contests the supervisory status of gang foremen. The record shows that Respondent employs six gang foremen, three of whom are ship gang foremen and three dock gang foremen. There are 24 longshoremen in a dock gang and 25 in a ship gang, including 8 riggers. The latter shape up and report to work an hour earlier than the other members of the gang and leave somewhat later. They are paid overtime rates for the extra hours worked. They are responsible to set up and dismantle the winches and conveyor belt systems whereby bananas are moved from ship to dock. Two sizes of ships unload bananas at the Port of Mobile. Seven ships are 377 feet in length from stem to stern and carry 90,000 boxes of bananas. Two ships are 310 feet in length and haul 55,000 boxes of bananas. During unload- ing between 3,200 and 3,700 boxes of fruit come off the ship per hour per gang. The dock has nine truck bays. Six trucks are loaded at one time, four men to a truck, making a gang of 24 men on the dock for the six trucks. Every dock gang requires a correlative ship gang, and vice versa. At a maximum there would be three dock gangs and three ship gangs working at the same time. Thus, there would appear to be a minimum of 49 longshoremen working at one time and a maximum of 149. Respondent's admitted supervisors at the Port of Mobile are a stevedoring superintendent and an assistant superin- tendent. However, the record is clear that the gang fore- men hire the members of their gangs at morning shapeups and this function is entirely within their discretion. The gang foremen are pushers, who receive 50 cents more per hour than the members of their gangs. The dock gang fore- men are responsible to see to it that their gang members properly stack the boxes of bananas in the trucks. The ship gang foremen are responsible to see to it that their men keep the flow of produce moving from the ship to the dock. On the basis of substantially the same evidence in the prior case Administrative Law Judge Stevenson concluded that the gang foremen were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The Board affirmed that con- clusion. I reach the same conclusion in the instant case for the same reasons. Willie B. Edwards: A longshoreman since 1967 or 1968, Edwards worked regularly on the general cargo dock with the gang of Rev. A. Cooke. Occasionally, however, he would appear for a shapeup on the banana dock. In De- cember 1976, he had a casual conversation with Johnson. Johnson told Edwards that Johnson would not refuse to give Edwards a job because Edwards would not sign a card or a "blank" (service charge authorization form) for Local 1516. Edwards reported at the banana dock on the morning of January 4, 1977. Edwards asked Johnson for a rigging job and Johnson replied that he could not give Edwards one of them. Edwards then asked for any kind of job and Johnson then asked if Edwards had signed a paper to join Local 1516. Edwards said that he had not. Johnson then said that Isom Clemon, business agent for Local 1516. had told Johnson not to hire the men who had not signed the blanks; to hire those men first who had already signed. Johnson told Edwards to go into the timekeeper's office and sign the blank in that office and Johnson would give Edwards a job any time he came to the shapeup. Edwards refused. Longshoremen McKinley Franklin was present on this occasion. Edwards then asked foreman C. Small for a job and C. Small told Edwards that C. Small would not give Edwards a job because Edwards would not sign the paper, that Edwards wanted to be kind of smart. Edwards also asked Mathews for a job and Mathews asked where Edwards' 1516 card was. Edwards said he did not have a 1516 card and offered his 1410 card. Mathews then asked Edwards if Edwards had signed a blank to get a 1516 card. Edwards said, no. Mathews then said that Edwards did not want to work down there. Edwards then asked Bumpers for a job. Bumpers replied that he had already let Edwards work there long enough without signing a card. Bumpers told Edwards that Edwards wanted to be a bad influence on the other guys and that Bumpers would not give Ed- wards a job until he signed a card. On January 11, 1977, Edwards again reported to the ba- nana dock shapeup. Edwards attempted to shape up with Johnson, who asked Edwards where his 1516 card was. Edwards said that Johnson knew Edwards did not have a 1516 card, that he had a 1410 card. Johnson said that Ed- wards had to have a 1516 card to work down there; that Edwards had to see Isom Clemon to get a 1516 card. Ed- wards repeated the same procedure with Mathews, who stated that Edwards would not work there unless he got a 1516 card. Bumpers told Edwards that Bumpers had not signed a contract to give Edwards a job; that Edwards had to have a 1516 card and would not work on the dock be- cause he would not sign a blank. On January 25, 1977, Edwards returned to the banana dock. On that occasion Edwards tried to shape up with Johnson, Mathews, and Green. However, none of the fore- men picked Edwards for a job. On Friday, March 4, 1977, Edwards had a conversation with Bumpers at the ILA Hall. Bumpers told Edwards to come down to the dock on the following Sunday and Bumpers would give Edwards a job. Edwards reported on Sunday, March 6, accompanied by Franklin, and tried to shape up with Johnson. Johnson said he couldn't use Ed- wards; that if Edwards signed the blank Johnson would give Edwards a job any time Edwards came down there. 861 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Edwards then approached Bumpers and said, "Here I am, you told me to come down here." Bumpers replied, "Okay, baby, I see you." Bumpers then picked cards all around Edwards. When Edwards asked why Bumpers would not give Edwards a job, Bumpers said he couldn't use Ed.- wards, that if Edwards signed that card Bumpers could use Edwards any time Edwards came down there. Edwards fi.- nally attempted to shape up with Mathews. Edwards tried to give his 1410 card to Mathews and Mathews responded that he would not take that damned card. Herbert Small. A longshoreman for about 24 to 25 years, he is a member of Local 1410 and has worked regularly on the gang of his brother, Foreman C. Small, on the banana dock. Herbert generally works as a rigger. About Novem- ber or December 1976, Herbert had a conversation with C'. Small in the hold of the ship. C. Small asked Herbert to sign a blank paper for Local 1516. Herbert replied that he belonged to Local 1410. Herbert testified that C. Small said if "we don't sign the blank, we never work in that boat." The next week when Herbert appeared at a shapeup. C. Small, for the first time, refused to hire Herbert. C. Small said that he would not hire Herbert until Herbert signed that blank. A week or two later Herbert returned to the shapeup. C. Small again refused to take Herbert's card. On one of the above occasions, November 30, 1976, Her- bert Protested to Respondent's stevedoring superintendent, Michael Schiro, the fact that C. Small had denied Herbert employment because Herbert would not sign a blank for Local 1516. Schiro investigated the incident. He testified that he talked to C. Small, that the latter could not give Schiro any kind of definite answer and wasn't making a lot of sense. Schiro then called Louis J. Fitzgerald, vice presi- dent of Respondent's southeast region and suggested that Herbert be paid for the hours he would have worked hatl C. Small hired Herbert. Fitzgerald agreed reluctantly.4 Schiro gave Herbert a check for a day's work. However, about 2 weeks later when Herbert protested a second time that his brother would not give Herbert a job Schiro again investigated the incident, but concluded that Herbert was not entitled to be paid and did not give Herbert a check. Herbert testified that about a month or 6 weeks after the first refusal when Herbert reported at a shapeup, C. Small said, "I told y'all I wasn't going to hire y'all till we sign that blank." Herbert continued to shape up at the banana dock al- most every week when the banana boat came to port on Sundays until he was hurt about the last of March 1977. On a single occasion in March 1977, C. Small did, in fact. give Herbert a job. About 2 or 4 weeks after C. Small stopped hiring Her- bert the two of them had a conversation in the ILA Local 4 Fitzgerald testified that following the hearing in the previous case. which concluded on October 28. 1976, he instructed Schiro to call a meeting of th: ship and dock gang foremen and to make it absolutely clear to them that they were not to engage in the activity of passing out checkoff slips for employees who had not signed: that it made no difference who thes em- plo.ed. the foremen were to select their regular employees first and then fill in with anyone Schiro testified that he carried out these instructions: that he instructed the foremen to select able-bodied men without regard to an', kind of union card. 151b. 1410, or any other union card 1410 hall. Herbert asked his brother, "C. what make you stop hiring me?" C. replied it was because Herbert would not sign that blank down there. Herbert did not reply, but just dropped his head and went on. Ernest Small: A longshoreman for about 8 or 9 years, he is a member of Local 1410 and has been employed on the banana dock fairly regularly. He works generally as a rig- ger and always had shaped up with his brother, C. Small. In February 1977, C. Small told Ernest that they had some papers that Ernest would have to sign to work down there. If Ernest didn't sign, there was no use in his coming back. C. Small said, "You can just save your gas." Prior to the first refusal C. Small had always hired Ernest whenever Ernest appeared at the shapeup. For 2 or 3 months after the first refusal Ernest returned to the shapeup whenever the boat came to port. C. Small kept telling Ernest that he had to sign "them papers, no need to come down here, you won't sign them papers," About 2 or 3 weeks later C. Small told Ernest, "I ain't going to tell y'all no more you got to sign them papers, just ain't going to hire you." On two or three occasions C. Small mentioned Local 1516 when he refused to hire Ernest at a shapeup. On a single occasion, about a week before the hearing in the instant case, C. Small hired Ernest. The testimony of Edwards is corroborated, in part, by that of McKinley Franklin, a longshoreman from Novem- ber 20, 1976, until April, 1977. Franklin had a work card from Local 1410 and subsequently in February or the early part of March 1977, obtained a work card from Local 1516. Franklin testified that in January 1977, or the early part of February someone came down into the boat where the men were working. He had a blank piece of paper and he wanted all of the men to sign so they could get the 1516 card. Franklin signed. Franklin testified further that in the early part of Janu- ary 1977, Johnson took Franklin's 1410 card, but said that Franklin "had better get that blue card, which he was re- ferring to the 1516 card. He said, because one day I won't be able to take this card, you won't be able to work on this 1410 card, said, you're going to have to get that blue card, is what he told me." Franklin told Johnson that Franklin had already applied for a card, but had not yet received it. Franklin was hired on that occasion. Following the shape- up on that day Franklin asked someone in the timekeeper's office if he did not have a card for Franklin. Receiving a negative answer, Franklin thereafter talked to Isom Clem- on who said that he would have a card for Franklin. The following Tuesday Franklin reported for a shapeup with C. Small. Small said that he was going to take all the men who had the blue card first. Franklin did not yet have a blue card so he left. He went to Clemon's house and Clemon gave Franklin a blue 1516 card. Franklin testified that he accompanied Edwards to the shapeup at the banana dock on two occasions. The first occasion was in January 1977. They shaped up with John- son. By that time Franklin had signed the blank authoriza- tion form for Local 1516. He was hired even though he had only a 1410 card. However, Johnson told Edwards that Johnson would not take Edwards' 1410 card, that Edwards had to get a 1516 card. On the second occasion in March 862 SOUTHERN STEVEDORING COMPANY 1977, Franklin had his 1516 card and Johnson accepted it. Franklin could not hear what Johnson said to Edwards, but observed that Johnson would not accept Edwards' card. Franklin observed Edwards holding up his card to Mathews and Bumpers, but neither foreman accepted the card. Foremen Johnson, Small, Mathews, and Bumpers all de- nied that they had refused to hire Edwards because the latter would not sign a card for Local 1516. They testified uniformly that they were willing to, and did, select all cards at their shapeups, without discrimination, including 1410 cards, 1516 cards, and cards that merely indicated the individual's social security number. Johnson recalled that Edwards had asked for a rigging job on one occasion. However, Johnson had already select- ed his eight riggers and refused to release any of them to give Edwards a preference. C. Small testified that he voluntarily offered to give Ed- wards a job when Edwards complained that some of the foremen would not hire him. However, Edwards never asked C. Small for a job. With respect to his brothers' charges, C. Small testified that he did offer them jobs, but not jobs as riggers. He explained that he had stopped hiring them as riggers because they made a practice of leaving the banana dock about 4 p.m. to go to the general cargo dock for another job. The other men in C. Small's gang would complain that his brothers had left early and they had to stay and finish the hard work at the banana dock. Mathews and Bumpers both flatly denied ever refusing to hire Edwards. They testified that they had offered Ed- wards a job if he would appear at a shapeup, but Edwards never took advantage of their offers. Respondent adduced evidence that from January 7. 1977, through January 28, 1977, Edwards drew disability benefits from the Mobile Steamship Association. During a portion of the same period from January 10, 1977, through February 6, 1977, Edwards drew unemployment compen- sation from the Alabama Unemployment Compensation Bureau. Edwards was found to be disqualified for such compensation for the week ending February 6, 1977. be- cause during that week he had, in fact, earned $330.30. As an offset to its claim the Bureau withheld a subsequent unemployment payment to Edwards. Respondent also ad- duced evidence that Rev. A. Cooke's gang on the general cargo dock to which Edwards was permanently assigned was called out to work on January 6, 13, 21, 24, 26. 28, 31, 1977. Edwards could have, but did not work in Cooke's gang on those dates. I do not accept Edwards' explanation that he did not work because he did not have a car or for another reason unclear in the record. Vice President Fitzgerald testified that Mathews and Johnson did not carry a gang on January 11, 1977. and Johnson and Bumpers did not carry a gang on January 25, 1977. Johnson was not asked and did not testify with re- spect to his presence on the banana dock on those dates. Mathews testified that he did not think he had a gang on January 4, but was probably there on January 11. Bumpers did not recall any specific dates, except that he was absent because of illness during some portion of January 1977. Despite Fitzgerald's testimony that there was no reason for a foreman to shape up if he did not carry a gang, such testimony does not contradict the testimony of Edwards that the above foremen were present on the above dates and that Edwards asked them for a job and was refused. The record shows that foremen, who did not carry their own gang on a particular date, at times shaped up to work in other foremen's gangs. Bumpers also testified that when he was sick "it was somebody shaping my gang up at the time." Accordingly, company records from which Fitzger- ald testified are not conclusive with respect to the presence or absence of particular foremen on the banana dock on specific dates. Conclusions This case hinges solely on a question of credibility. If I believe the General Counsel's witnesses Respondent's fore- men carried out their threats made in the previous case to den)y employment to longshoremen who refused to sign cards or blank authorization forms for Local 1516. If I believe the Respondent's foremen, they did no such thing, but rather offered employment to Local 1410 members without regard to their support or nonsupport of Local 1516. The record in this case, as in the previous case, reveals the existence of a deep-seated hostility between the leaders of those two sister Locals. That hostility has permeated the rank-and-file with the result that in the instant case friend has been pitted against friend and brother against brother. I have no doubt that the longshoremen who claim discrimi- nation in this case and the foremen who deny it have been playing a cat-and-mouse game with each other. Respon- dent, so far as this record shows, has been caught in the cross-fire of the fierce rivalry between strong adherents of one Local as against the other. Nevertheless, as Judge Ste- venson pointed out in the previous case, Respondent must be held responsible for the conduct of its supervisors. The resolution of credibility questions is, at best, diffi- cult and often distressing. It is so here. I have considered the matter carefully and I have concluded that there is truth to the allegations of the complaint that Respondent's foremen refused to hire Edwards because he would not sign a card for, or contribute financial support to, Local 1516. Foreman C. Small refused to hire his brothers, Her- bert and Ernest. for the same reason. In crediting Edwards I have taken into consideration the evidence that he abused his right to receive disability bene- fits and unemployment compensation. It is not clear to me, however, that a false claim for these benefits is, among longshoremen or, indeed, among employees generally a matter of high immorality. While the practice is not to be condoned. we maN have reached the point in our society where some citizens honestly believe that taking money from the government, whether deserved or not, is not ma- Iumn pr se. It can be rationalized even by persons more sophisticated than Edwards. In an) event. despite Ed- wards' misconduct in this area. it does not follow that I must discredit his entire testimony,. His story, that he ap- peared at the banana dock on several occasions and was denied a job because he would not sign a card or blank for Local 1516, has the ring of truth. Moreover, as indicated above. Franklin, a witness as disinterested as any in this 863 DECISIONS OF NATIONA.L LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proceeding, partially corroborated Edwards' testimony in clear contradiction to the testimony of C. Small, Johnson, Mathews, and Bumpers. I cannot accept the explanation offered by C. Small that he denied his brothers, Herbert and Ernest, jobs as riggers because they customarily left early in the afternoon. C. Small had no complaint on this score for several years prior to the advent of Local 1516. During that entire period his brothers worked fairly regularly for him as riggers. II', as C. Small testified, they made a habit of leaving earl), surely this practice would have been the subject of his con- cern long before December 1976, when Herbert was first refused a job. Accordingly, I find that on January 4, 11, 25, and March 6, 1977, Respondent through its foremen discriminatorily refused to hire Edwards because he would not sign a card or a blank authorization form for Local 1516. Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. In November and December 1976, and in January 1977, Re- spondent through its foreman, C. Small, threatened to deny employment to Herbert Small because he would not sign a blank authorization form for Local 1516. Beginning in No- vember 1976, and continuing thereafter on various occa- sions until about the last of March 1977, Respondent through its foreman, C. Small did, in fact, discriminatorily deny employment to Herbert Small. By such conduct Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. Beginning in February 1977, and on various dates thereaf- ter Respondent through its foreman, C. Small, refused to hire Ernest Small because the latter would not sign a blank authorization form for Local 1516. Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in the above un- fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action, including the posting of notices and the payment to employees of any losses they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. With respect, however, to Edwards. the record shows that from January 7, 1977, until January 28, 1977, he claimed and drew disability ben- efits from the Mobile Steamship Association. I find there- fore that during this period he was disabled for work as a longshoreman. An employee is not entitled to backpay during periods of his disability. Accordingly, I shall not recommend that Edwards be reimbursed by Respondent for any period of time during which he claimed disability and was not physically able to perform the work of a long- shoreman.5 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: Although Edwards received disability benefits from January 7, 1977, until January 28. 1977, it is not clear whether his disability began on Janu- ary 7. 1977. or the preceding week. ORDER 6 The Respondent, Southern Stevedoring Company, Inc., Mobile, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Assisting Local 1516, International Longshoremen's Association, by threatening to deny and denying employ- ment to employees unless they agree to become members of, or contribute financial support to, that Union in the absence of a contract requiring employees to tender pe- riodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a con- dition of acquiring or retaining membership in a union. (b) Encouraging membership in Local 1516, Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, by threatening to deny and denying employment to employees unless they agree to become members of, or contribute financial support to, that Union in the absence of a contract requiring employ- ees to tender periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining member- ship in a union. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Willie B. Edwards, Herbert Small, and Ernest Small immediate and full reinstatement to their former sta- tus as longshoremen entitled to be considered for employ- ment at Respondent's banana dock without discrimination and make them whole, except for periods of work disabil- ity, for all losses they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them with interest in accordance with the formulas set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).) (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due the discrimina- tees under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its banana dock at the Port of Mobile, Ala- bama, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by its repre- sentatives, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily post- 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 7 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 864 SOUTHERN STEVEDORING COMPANY ed. Responable steps shall be taken by Respondent to in- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT assist Local 1516, International Longshoremen's Association, by threatening to deny and denying employment to employees unless they agree to become members of, or contribute financial support to, that Union in the absence of a contract requiring employees to tender periodic dues and initi- ation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquir- ing or retaining membership in a union. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 1516, International Longshoremen's Association, by threat- ening to den) and denying employment to employees unless they agree to become members of, or contribute financial support to, that Union in the absence of a contract requiring employees to tender periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in a union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Willie B. Edwards, Herbert Small and Ernest Small immediate and full reinstatement to their former status as longshoremen entitled to be consid- ered for employment at our banana dock in the Port of Mobile, Alabama, without discrimination and WE wnIL make them whole, with interest, except for pe- riods of work disability, for all losses suffered by them by reason of our discrimination against them. SOUTHERN STEVEDORING COMPANY. INC 865