Teamsters Local Union No. 676

948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters Local Union No. 676, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Tel- lepsen Petro-Chemical Company ) and Thomas D. Moore, An Individual. Case 4-CB-1369 July 2, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On March 12, 1968, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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. Thereafter, the Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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 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 recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 676, affiliated with the International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. MEMBER ZAGORIA, dissenting: I would find no violation here. It is well-settled that a union does not violate the Act when it seeks the discharge of an employee for not proceeding through the union hiring hall, where there is in ex- istence an agreement, oral or written, for such a hiring procedure between the union and the em- ployer.' Apparently, this is based on the rationale that the presence of an agreement between the parties, providing for union referral, negates any discriminatory impact on the employee, of the Radio Officers3 variety, that might otherwise occur. I believe a similar situation exists here. The em- ployee, a long-time union member, was told by the Employer, prior to his being employed, that he should secure clearance from his own Union. The Employer expressly told the employee that it wanted to abide by the Local's contract. Nonethe- less, the employee refused to seek or secure clearance. The Union obtained the discharge of this employee, still its member, for his failure to do so. There is no intimation the Union was motivated by other discriminatory considerations. In this situa- tion , I do not see the materiality of the presence or absence of a "meeting of the minds," in the formal, contractual sense. I would find the General Counsel has failed to establish unlawful purpose or en- couragement of union membership,' and would dismiss the complaint. ' In adopting the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2), we rely solely on the ground that there was no contract, arrangement, or course of conduct which would establish a lawful hiring hall agreement between the parties at the time Moore was hired We do not rely on the Trial Examiner 's reasoning that even if the contract signed by the Union on May 2, 1967, is held to have retroactive effect, it would not constitute a defense We deem it unnecessary to pass on the ef- fect of the contract since it was, in fact , signed after Moore was hired The position of our dissenting colleague appears to us to be without support under governing authority In demanding Moore's discharge because he had not obtained union clearance for his job, the Respondent Union was not seeking to enforce a contractual right-it had no contract with the Em- ployer-but was seeking instead to enforce compliance by Moore with an obligation of union membership The Supreme Court in the Radio Officers Union case , which presented an analogous factual situation, specifically held that encouragement of union membership is a natural and foreseeable consequence of such coerced compliance with union obligations or prac- tices Radio Officers' Union v N L R B , 347 U S 17, 52 In our view, the Court's holding in that case is clearly determinative of the issue here 2 Hoisting Engineers , Local 302 ( West Coast Steel Works ), 144 NLRB 1449, Local Union No 106 (Otis Elevator Company), 132 NLRB 1444 3 Radio Officers' Union v N L R B, 347 U S 17 'NLRB v Local357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Los An- geles-Seattle Motor Express ], 365 U S 667 See the discussion and cases cited in Shield Radio & T V Productions, Inc , 153 NLRB 68, 81-84 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Trial Examiner: This un- fair labor practice case came on to be heard and was tried before me at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on January 15, 1968. It was instituted pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(b), by a com- plaint dated November 21, 1967, issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board through the Regional Director for the 172 NLRB No. 58 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 949 Board's Region 4 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). That complaint is based on a charge filed by Thomas D. Moore on May 3, 1967, naming as the Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 676, af- filiated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.' In essence the complaint alleges that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), and that such conduct affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act. Respondent has answered, admitting some facts but denying that it committed any unfair labor practices. At the trial all parties were represented at and participated in the hearing, and they were granted full opportunity to introduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, submit briefs, and offer oral argument. Briefs have been received from Respondent and the General Counsel. Respon- dent's Motion to Correct Official Record, filed on February 5, 1968, is granted in the absence of op- position thereto. The issues in this case are: 1. Whether Respondent Local 676 caused or at- tempted to cause Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Com- pany, an employer, to discharge employee Thomas D. Moore because Moore was not hired through the hiring hall of Local 676; and 2. Whether a contract or arrangement existed between Tellepsen and Local Union No. 676 requiring Tellepsen to hire exclusively through the Local Union No. 676 hiring hall. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. ON JURISDICTION Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company, a Texas corporation with its principal office located in Houston, Texas, is engaged in the business of con- structing chemical and oil refinery equipment. Dur- ing the year next preceding the issuance of the complaint, it purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from, and performed services valued in excess of $50,000 at, points outside the State of Texas. I find that Tellep- sen is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion over Respondent in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Teamsters Local Union No. 676, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called the Union or Local 676, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Some time in 1966 Tellepsen was awarded a con- tract by Texaco to construct for Texaco at its West- ville, New Jersey, plant a turbine generator unit with a cooling tower and a sealed boiler unit. Con- struction thereof began in the spring of 1967. In the latter part of April 1967, Tellepsen had need for a truckdriver on this job. Glen D. Howard, Tellep- sen's official in charge of this job, mentioned such need to its pipefitter foreman. This information somehow reached a driver for Roadway Truck Company who inquired of Howard whether Tellep- sen wanted a truckdriver. Howard replied in the af- firmative and added that "we [are] going to have to get hold of the Union and get one in a few days." That driver for Roadway then mentioned to Howard that he knew a member of Local 676 who was out of work and asked if Howard desired to have such person come to see Howard. Thereupon, Howard said, "O.K." Thomas D. Moore, a member of Local 676 since 1955, has been a truckdriver for about 27 years. Learning that an opening existed at the Texaco job for a truckdriver, Moore went there to apply for it and told Howard that he, Moore, was the man who was mentioned to Howard by the Roadway truckdriver. At the time Moore was unemployed. This was about April 27, 1967.2 Moore spoke to Howard on that day and asked to be hired as a truckdriver. During the conversation Howard told Moore that this was going to be a "union job" and asked if Moore belonged to the Union. Replying that he did, Moore also produced documentary evidence to support his statement. When Howard asked Moore if he, Moore, "could have clearance with the Union," Moore replied that he "had [his] paid-up receipt." Howard also indicated that he wanted Moore to "check out" with the Union, and that Howard wanted to cooperate with the "Local Union in the area." Shortly thereafter Howard hired Moore, i.e., about April 27. When Howard hired Moore he told Moore, "Don't forget to clear with the Local and get the contracts and stuff out there, it's all right with me if you go to work here," and that, "if everything cleared up" Moore could start the following Mon- day morning, May 1. Moore did start on May 1. Immediately after hiring Moore, Howard in- troduced him to Tellepsen's timekeeper who, in turn, gave Moore some papers to fill out and told him to report for work on the following Monday, May 1. Moore reported to work on May 1 and ' This is the name of the Respondent as disclosed by its answer and agreed to by the parties at the hearing 2 All dates mentioned hereafter refer to the year 1967 except where otherwise specified 950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD worked all day as a truckdriver without incident. While at work during the morning of May 2 Moore was requested by Tellepsen's timekeeper to obtain "a contract from the union hall plus the trust agreements for the health and welfare and the pen- sion plan." Moore undertook to do so by telephon- ing the Union's business agent at the union hall having charge "of that particular field," i.e., Mr. Greeley, or Mr. Moses Jackson, or Mr. Hap Doman. None of them was in at the time. However, Moore was able to speak to Mr. Hall, the Union's secretary-treasurer. When Moore asked Hall for co- pies of "the trust agreements ... and the contract," Hall instructed him to obtain the trust agreements from Mrs. Daisey at the union hall but to see Mr. 'Greeley for "the contract." John P. Greeley is pres- ident of the Union, Local 676. On May 2 President Greeley of Local 676 learned from some complaining members of the Union that Moore was working for Tellepsen although he had not been registered on the Union's construction list. This is a register or roster of appli- cants for truckdriving work at area construction jobs. Local 676 carries three different registers or lists from which it dispatches or refers unemployed members; one for work at construction jobs,' one for work on tractor-trailers, and one for "straight job drivers and helpers and warehousemen." An unemployed member may sign to register on only one of these three lists. On May 1 and 2 the con- struction list carried names of unemployed mem- bers who had signed it as applicants for employ- ment. Upon learning that Moore had obtained work without signing the Union's construction list or re- gister, Greeley called Tellepsen. The latter con- firmed that Moore was employed there and had been hired on May 1. Thereupon, Greeley directed Jackson and Doman, business agents for Local 676, to investigate how Moore got the job, because, if Moore was actually working there, "it was in viola- tion with the agreements with our Local Union," and instructed them that Moore was to be laid off so that the next man on the construction list could fill the vacancy. On May 2, while Howard was away from the area, Local 676 telephoned Howard. Before he could return the call, Howard was visited by two business agents of Local 676, one of whom was Mr. Jackson. They told him "not to hire a man who did not get clearance off [the] work list at the hall." At this time Howard was not aware of the work list at the hall. When Howard asked them for a contract they gave him one and requested him to sign it. An- swering that he had no authority to execute a con- tract, Howard referred them to a Mr. Wilde and gave them Wilde's address. Continuing the conversation, the business agents informed Howard that Moore had obtained the truckdriver's job with Tellepsen "without getting clearance from the Local," and that Howard, there- fore, "would have to let [Moore] go." Howard did not object to this because he had previously told Moore "I [Howard] had to get clearance from the Union to start out with," and "as a general rule, that's something [1] have to do." Later that after- noon Howard told Moore "the circumstances, that he would have to leave." However, in response to Moore's question, Howard replied that Moore's work was satisfactory. Howard thereupon discharged Moore and accepted a replacement sent to him the next morning by Local 676. When Moore returned from lunch on May 2, Su- pervisor Howard spoke to him and informed Moore that Greeley had protested by telephone that Moore had been hired "without coming through the union hall." As a result Howard asked Moore to "get it straightened out right away" at the union hall. Moore then went to the hall. At the hall that afternoon Moore spoke to Greeley and asked why Greeley "knocked" him off the job. When Greeley asked him how he got the job, Moore replied he obtained it himself. At this Greeley told Moore that "you're not supposed to do that ... particularly on construction [as] we had men waiting around ... to go on construction." In the same conversation Greeley told Moore that Moore had not signed the construction list and that he, Moore, was "knocked off," and that two busi- ness agents had just gone to Tellepsen to knock him off. However, Moore insisted that Greeley "couldn't do it," that Moore had a right to go out to get his own job, and that Moore "would see [Greeley] in court." As he left the union hail, Moore encountered Business Agents Moses Jackson and Hap Doman. When Moore asked them if they had knocked him off the job, they replied affirmatively. So Moore told them also that he would see them in court. Thereupon, Moore returned to the construction site. When he arrived at the Texaco plant, Moore was informed by Howard that business agents of Local 676 had visited him, that they bitterly complained that Moore had been hired without being dispatched by the Union, and that they demanded that Moore be discharged. Thereupon, Moore inquired if his performance had been satisfactory. Assuring Moore that it was, Howard also allowed Moore to finish the day but told him he, Moore, was dismissed from further work. At the end of the day Moore was paid for 2 days' work. He has not been rehired by Tellepsen. Some time later Moore If material, I find that Moore spoke in favor of a construction list when a motion to adopt one was considered at a meeting of Local 676 about 4 years prior to 1967. That motion was carried TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 951 obtained "another union job" himself and has kept it without protest from Local 676. Upon arriving at Westville, New Jersey, in 1966 to take charge of the construction, Tellepsen's su- pervisor and agent, Howard, had a meeting with of- ficials of the Building Trades Council to get acquainted with them and also to give them a general "rundown" of the construction to be per- formed. Local 676 is a member of this Council. Later (but after May 1) Tellepsen and Local 676 executed a collective-bargaining contract "effec- 'tive" May 1, 1966 (Respondent's Exhibit 1), but I find it had not come into force on May 1, 1966.4 Section 4 of Article 1 thereof, captioned "Hiring Additional Men," provides that: The Employer shall notify the Union when any new employees are to be hired. The Union shall have the right to send applicants for the job or jobs, and the Employer agrees to inter- view such applicants and give the same inter- view considerations to Union sent applicants as is given to applicants from other sources. This provision shall not be deemed to require the Employer to hire Union applicants or to preclude the Employer from hiring employees from other sources. After the probationary period, the employee shall be placed on the regular seniority list. Howard's "general procedure" is to "call the Lo- cals" when it becomes necessary to fill vacancies in any classification. He also testified, and I credit him, that he indicated to Moore, as well as "the union agents," that he was "conducting union jobs and ... wanted to adhere to the Local's contract." There is testimony by Respondent's president, John P. Greeley, which I credit, that an unem- ployed member of Local 676 signing the "straight truck list ... could solicit a job himself off the streets ... on that particular list." Concluding Findings and Discussion It is undisputed, and I find, that Moore did not register on the Union's construction list, and that he was not dispatched, sent, cleared, or referred by the Union for the truckdriver's job involved in this proceeding. Patently Respondent Local 676 de- manded or insisted on, and obtained, the discharge of Moore because he had neither registered with nor been cleared by Local 676. I so find. Also, I find that Moore neither registered with nor was. cleared by the Union. And I find that Local 676 at- tempted to cause, and caused, Moore's discharge. Martin Bros., 123 NLRB 1231, 1234. Accordingly, I further find that Local 676 attempted to cause, and did indeed cause, Tellepsen, Moore's em- ployer, to discharge him because he did not sign the construction list and was not referred or dispatched to Tellepsen by Local 676. This conduct by the Union manifestly violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act (Radio Of- ficers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 52) unless it can be salvaged or insulated by a nondiscriminatory, collective-bargaining agreement obligating Tellep- sen to use the hiring hall, and the hall is operated in a nondiscriminatory manner. Local 357, Teamsters v. N.L.R.B. (Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express), 365 U.S. 667. I find nothing in the record to in- dicate that the hiring hall of Local 676 was operated in a discriminatory manner. It follows that the principal question is whether such a bargaining agreement was in force on May 1 when Moore was hired. Laborers Local 652 (Hood-River-Neill), 135 NLRB 43, 44. Preliminarily it is desirable to observe that an agreement requiring the use of the hiring hall, and thus exonerating Local 676, may be in the form of an arrangement, and that "such an agreement or arrangement need not be written, but may be established by evidence of an oral understanding or of a course of conduct in which both parties mu- tually assume the concomitant obligations imposed by the necessity to use a hiring hall or referral system." Hoisting Engineers, Local 302 (West Coast Steel Works), 144 NLRB 1449, 1452; Local Union No. 106 (Otis Elevator Company), 132 NLRB 1444, 1448. But I find no arrangement or course of conduct in existence on May 1 which would sanction the discharge of Moore because he failed to be cleared or referred by Local 676. Obviously no truckdriver had been hired by Tellepsen before Moore was put to work. Hence, no practice or course of conduct is discernible in the record since Moore was the first truckdriver who was hired by Tellepsen. And I also find that no arrangement was made which would require that Moore should be cleared or referred by Local 676, and that the Union could lawfully compel his discharge if he were hired without pursuing such a course. In the first place, I find that no arrangement resulted from the con- ference between Tellepsen's representative, Howard, and the Building Trades Council in August or September 1966, because the evidence plainly demonstrates that construction truckdrivers were not discussed at this meeting. In the second place, I find that no such arrangement arose on or about April 27 when Howard told Moore that Howard in- tended this to be a union job and that Moore should clear with Local 676. This is because an ar- rangement can emerge only by consensual agree- ment, and there is nothing in the record to disclose that on that date Local 676 had agreed to any ar- rangement. International Hod Carriers' Local #300 ' Although the parties stipulated that the contract was signed on May 2 by John P Greeley, I find that it was then mailed to Houston for the em- ployer's signature . Greeley is Respondent's president. 952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Martin Bros.), 123 NLRB 1231, 1235. Finally, I find no arrangement arose on this occasion because Howard's statement to Moore is equivocal and is susceptible of more than one meaning: it could mean that Moore had to be referred by Local 676 or it could connote only that Moore had to belong to the Union. In such a situation it cannot be found on a preponderance of the evidence that the minds of the parties met on either interpretation , if they met at all. Cf. Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 392 (Alco Products, Inc.), 136 NLRB 492, 493. Local 742, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 157 NLRB 451, 453-454, points to a similar conclusion. Iron Workers Local 433 (Riverside Steel Construction), 169 NLRB 667, is distinguishable. In addition, I find that no written contract had been executed or consummated between Tellepsen and Local 676 on or before May 1, 1967, whereby Tellepsen committed itself to hire as truckdrivers only those dispatched or referred to it by said Local 676. This is because I find that the only written contract between the parties (Respondent's Exhibit 1) had not been signed by the Union until May 2, 1967, and by Tellepsen until May 2, 1967, or per- haps shortly thereafter. Respondent is not aided by the fact that said contract by its terms retroactively became effective on May 1, 1966. This is because third persons, such as Moore, cannot be deprived of certain rights accruing to them prior to the ex- ecution of the contract. Such rights include the status of employees acquired on May 1, 1967. Hence, it is not necessary to ascertain just which other provisions of the contract became validly retroactive to May 1, 1966. Even if the contract in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1 is held to have retroactively been in force from May 1, 1966, nevertheless, it will not con- stitute a defense. For section 4 of article 1 thereof does not compel Tellepsen to consider only appli- cants referred by the Union. Rather it explicitly recognizes that "the Employer agrees to . . . give the same interview considerations to Union sent ap- plicants as is given to applicants from other sources. This provision shall not be deemed to require the Employer to hire Union applicants or to preclude the Employer from hiring employees from other sources." It follows that this contract cannot immunize the Union from liability under Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) for its conduct in causing Moore to lose his job. On the basis of the entire record I conclude and find that Respondent Local 676 transgressed Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by attempting to cause and actually causing the discharge of Moore. Radio Officers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 52; American Pipe and Steel Corp., 93 NLRB 54, 56. Cf. Eichleay Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 206 F.2d 799 (C.A. 3). Nor does Section 8(f) of the Act release the Union from liability for its conduct. This is because I have found that no contract or arrange- ment. whether embodied in a writing or established by a practice or course of conduct of the parties, was in effect on May 1 when Moore was hired. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor prac- tices, occurring in connection with Tellepsen'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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent caused Tellep- sen to discriminatorily discharge Moore , I shall recommend that Respondent notify Tellepsen, in writing, furnishing a copy thereof to Moore , that it withdraws objections to Moore's employment by Tellepsen and requests said Employer to offer Moore reinstatement as a truckdriver or a substan- tially equivalent position. It will further be recommended that Respondent make Moore whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. In making Moore whole, Respondent shall pay to him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of such discharge to the date of reinstatement or a proper offer of reinstate- ment, as the case may be, less his net earnings dur- ing such period . Such backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis as prescribed in F. W. Wool- worth Company , 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent calculated in the manner adopted in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Since the causing of the discharge of Moore is an isolated instance and since the record is barren of any evidence that Local 676 has displayed a general disregard of the Act , I find that an Order broad in scope is not warranted. Hence , I shall recommend that the relief granted be limited to en- joining similar or like conduct. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 676 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company is an em- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO . 676 953 ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7), of the Act. 3. By attempting to cause, and causing Tellep- sen, an employer, to discriminate against its em- ployee, Moore, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing conduct Respondent has restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect 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 upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company to discharge or otherwise discriminate against Thomas D. Moore, or any other employee of, or applicant for employment at, Tellepsen because he has not been cleared, referred, or dispatched by Local 676, except to the extent that a lawful contract or arrangement between Local 676 and Tellepsen authorizes the same. (b) In any similar or like manner restraining or coercing the employees of Tellepsen Petro-Chemi- cal Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company, in writing, and furnish Thomas D. Moore with a copy thereof, that they have no objection to the employment of Moore and to his immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position. (b) Make whole Thomas D. Moore for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the dis- crimination against him, in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify Thomas D. Moore if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Post at the business offices and meeting halls of Local 676 copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.6 5 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision and Order " 6 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 OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No. 676, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Tel- lepsen Petro-Chemical Company to discharge or otherwise discriminate against Thomas D. Moore because he has not been referred to said Employer by us. WE WILL NOT in any similar or like manner restrain or coerce the employees of Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, ex- cept to the extent that such rights may be af- fected by an agreement authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL notify, in writing, Tellepsen Petro- Chemical Company that we have no objection to the employment of Thomas D. Moore and to his immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or one substantially equivalent to it. 954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL make whole Thomas D. Moore for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of any discriminatory action by us against him. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No. 676, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Note: We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Ser- vice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building , Walnut and Juniper Streets , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 579-7601.