Local 383, Lathers Union

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local No. 383, Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO and Donald Eugene Lovely and James Paul Amirante . Case 7-CB-1836 June 5, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On March 19, 1969, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in reply to Respondent's exceptions and supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, Local No. 383, Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers, International Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE nonmembership in the Local , and (b) whether the Local thereafter unlawfully refused to refer Lovely and Amirante to work for Tri-City, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and ( 1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Upon the entire record , including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Union, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION INVOLVED Tri-City, a Michigan corporation, operates places of business in Carrollton and Flint, Michigan, where it is engaged as a subcontractor in lathing, plastering, and the installation of acoustical ceilings, drywalls, and movable partitions, and where during a representative year it purchases and receives materials valued in excess of $150,000 directly from outside the State. The Union admits, and I find, that Tri-City is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. If. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background During 1968, there was a shortage of journeyman lathers in the Flint, Michigan, area -- the Union (Local 383 in Flint, with a membership of 20) being unable to meet the need. Sometime in February or March, journeyman lathers Donald E. Lovely and James P. Amirante went to Flint, at the suggestion of Edward A. Wright, a business representative for the Michigan State Council of Lathers. (Amirante was a member of the Chicago local. Lovely, a suspended member of the Detroit local, was paying his reinstatement fee.) They reported to Business Agent Garth Lavigne, who immediately referred them to work in the area. Early in April, Garth Lavigne referred them to Tri-City's Sports Arena job. They worked there until May 3, when they and the other members of the crew were temporarily laid off as a result of a lockout caused by strikes in the construction industry in Michigan The lockout lasted about 10 weeks, until about July 10 or 12. On Friday, July 12, Tri-City issued instructions to recall the crew. All referrals were made by Garth Lavigne and his brother, Assistant Business Agent William Lavigne, who served as Acting Business Agent from about July 10 to August 5, while Garth was experiencing difficulties with an ulcer The Local did not have an office or union hall for making referrals. MARION C. LADwIG, Trial Examiner: This case was tried at Flint, Michigan, on January 15-16, 1969, pursuant to a charge filed on September 27, and amended on October 25, 1968,1 by Donald E. Lovely and James P. Amirante, employees of Tri-City Acoustical Company, herein called Tri-City, against the Respondent, Local No. 383, Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or Local, and pursuant to a complaint issued October 29. The primary issues are (a) whether the Local on July 16 caused Tri-City to discharge Lovely and Amirante because of B. Discharge After Recall The crew resumed work on the Sports Arena job on Monday, July 15. The next day, July 16, Acting Business Agent William Lavigne visited the job and (as credibly testified by Amirante) complained to Superintendent James A. Knight and Foreman Hubert Cushman about the "two out-of-town men," Lovely and Amirante, being on the job when "local men" were not working. (Although 'All dates, unless otherwise indicated, refer to the year 1968. 176 NLRB No. 49 LOCAL 383, LATHERS UNION 411 denying on direct examination that he ever used, or ever •heard used, the term "local men," Lavigne later testified, "I'm a local man.") Lavigne testified that he informed Knight and Cushman that Tri•City was not living up to an oral agreement reached 2 weeks earlier in Lansing, "to put back the men that resided in Flint and who had seniority with contractors in Flint." Neither Superintendent Knight nor Foreman Cushman (who was a member of the Local's executive board) was aware of any such agreement. They went with Lavigne to telephone State Representative Wright. Foreman Cushman placed the call and (in Wright's words) "told me that Bill [Lavigne] was on the job and that he was questioning the right of a couple of men to be on the job, that he had not been called. . . . I told him this was a direct violation of the working agreement and the agreement reached at Lansing, on June 28 . ." (Wright did not know at the time that the Local had referred Lovely and Amirante to this same job in April, and that they had been recalled as laid-off employees after the lockout.) Then Knight and Lavigne spoke in turn to Wright, and Knight stated to Foreman Cushman, "We're not going to have any union troubles. Get rid of the men." Lovely and Amirante were discharged. Before the telephone call was placed, Lavigne had questioned the right of a third lather, Frank Knight, to be on the job. Lavigne testified that Frank Knight "had left and ... was in Florida working" during the lockout, "and I did not know that he was back." When asked what he said to Frank Knight, Lavigne testified, "I asked him - we had the understanding that he had left the state. He had, but he had come back the week before that and he had never taken his transfer out of the local." Upon learning that Frank Knight had retained his active membership in the Local, Lavigne had no objection to his remaining on the job. Superintendent Knight, who overheard this conversation between Lavigne and Frank Knight, credibly testified that when Lavigne asked for permits, "Frank Knight said he had no reason to have a permit, because he was a local man and there was discussion about this. And, apparently, someone was misinformed about his transfer being taken out." (Concerning Frank Knight's use of the word, "permit," I note that Lavigne denied that the Local issued permits, and testified that the Local issued "referral slips" or "written verifications to go to work." However, Lavigne himself used the word, "permit," testifying at one point, "We give a man a permit from month to month, until his transfer - if he desires to transfer - from his own local into our local, we give him a permit from month to month." (Emphasis supplied.) I also note that when Lovely later went to work on Tri-City's G.M.I. job, Business Agent Garth Lavigne gave him a slip of paper with the notation, "Working Permit, Local 383 Flint," and the date "8-19-68 to 8-24-68." Lovely credibly testified that "It's a permit so I can work.") C. Referrals Withheld When Lovely and Amirante were removed on July 16 from the Sports Arena job, the only journeymen left with Foreman Cushman were Frank Knight and Garth Lavigne (who had returned to work, despite the ulcer). As credibly testified by Superintendent Knight, Tri-City had a deadline to meet on the job, and needed at that time eight or nine men there. (Foreman Cushman confirmed that "they [were] in a hurry for the job.") Immediately, Knight asked William Lavigne to send him some more men, and Lavigne said he would. Later that week, Knight telephoned State Representative Edward Wright and asked if men were available. "Ed said for me to check with my own local business agent, which I did" - speaking to Garth Lavigne (then working on the job), "and he said he would see that [we] got men." Knight repeatedly asked Garth Lavigne for men. (Garth Lavigne did not testify.) In the meantime, Lovely sought permission to return with Amirante to the Sports Arena job. On the weekend after their discharge, Lovely asked Foreman Cushman "if we can come back to work and he said no, not yet." Thereafter, Lovely asked both Superintendent Knight and Garth Lavigne for work. Knight told Lovely he could go right to work if he got the permit - which the Local would not give at that time. Finally, after about 4 weeks, Lovely and Amirante were hired by Tri-City to work as carpenters on its G.M.I. job, after they obtained permits from the carpenters' hall. Later that week, about August 14, the Local sent them word that they could go to work at the G.M.I. job (as lathers). They were never offered referrals to return to the Sports Arena job. D. No Immediate Replacements It is undisputed that the Local did not refer anybody immediately to the job to replace Lovely and Amirante. As credibly testified by Superintendent Knight, it was not until 3 to 7 days later that the Local referred one journeyman, Blaine Lavigne (William and Garth Lavigne's brother), and about 2 or 3 weeks after the discharges when two more men were referred: first Dan Ruggins, an out-of-state journeyman "that drifted through" (referred by Garth Lavigne), and then journeyman Melvin Wright. (William Lavigne appeared on the stand to be attempting to fabricate a defense when he testified that Knight did not ask him for any additional men on July 16 after Lovely and Amirante were released, that Knight told him on July 17 that Knight "didn't need any men at that time," and that it was after about a week when Knight first asked for three men. I specifically discredit this testimony - except the admission that Tri-City requested three men.) When Lavigne was asked on direct examination if there were Flint-resident men out of work on July 16, he named journeyman Jack Wolf, two apprentices, "and, at the time, I think my brother [Blaine Lavigne] was off and that's why Al [Knight] put him to work on the skating rink." (Emphasis supplied.) It would seem that if his brother, Blaine, had in fact been out of work on July 16, William Lavigne would have immediately referred him as a replacement for Lovely or Amirante. Journeyman Wolf was not referred as a replacement. Lavigne testified that he "would say in two weeks" all the men residing in the Flint area were back to work, and that when "the G.M.I. job broke," he sent word to Lovely and Amirante that they could go to work there. However this explanation does not account for the 2-week period between the elapse of 2 weeks when the local residents were back at work, and the elapse of 4 weeks when the referrals were offered Lovely and Amirante. During the entire 4 weeks, Tri-City was seeking more men on that job. In this connection, I note that Lovely and Amirante alleged in their September 27 charge filed herein against the Local, that in the weeks following their July 16 discharge, "the Union still refused to issue us a permit to work, until they found out that we were taking action against them." At the trial, Lovely credibly testified, "We 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were talking about [filing the charge] a month after we were let go" (i.e., about the middle of August, when the Local finally offered Lovely and Amirante referrals to a different job), and that he talked it over with Superintendent Knight, Foreman Cushman (a member of the Local's executive board), and later Elwood Lewis. (Lewis' status with the Local is not entirely clear. Lewis, a member of the Chicago local, was the one who delivered to Lovely his April referral, or "Written Verification," to the Sports Arena job; who advised Lavigne on July 15 or 16 that Tri-City "was not living up to their agreement" on that job; and who was sent by the Local on August 14 to notify Lovely and Amirante that they could go to work at Tri-City's G.M.I. job). Having considered all the evidence and circumstances, I find that the Local refused to refer Lovely and Amirante to available work at the Sports Arena job from July 16 to August 14, and that it then offered them referrals to another job because of the talk about filing a Labor Board charge. E. Later Referrals After working the first day as a carpenter on the G.M.I. job, Lovely worked there several weeks as a lather. Thereafter, upon request, the Union referred him to another job. On January 9, 1969, when Lovely was referred to a third job, the union steward showed him two documents to sign, withdrawing the charge filed herein. The steward said, "You don't have to sign these papers to go to work. If you go to work without signing the papers, there won't be a lather left on the job." Lovely left, and that evening he and Amirante met with William and Garth Lavigne and the steward. (Amirante had continued to work as a carpenter.) Both Lovely and Amirante signed the withdrawal requests, upon the understanding that Amirante would "come back as a lather," and that the Local would do its best to keep Lovely and Amirante working together, at least until Lovely finished paying his reinstatement fee. F. The Referral Procedure Tri-City and the Local were parties to a Working Agreement, executed by nine lathers' locals and the lathing contractors in Michigan outside of Detroit. The agreement contains a provision on "Hiring," stating that "In hiring journeymen lathers," the contractor will "afford the Local Union at least 48 hours within which to refer competent and experienced journeymen lathers," and that "Age, residence seniority , as to length of service as a journeyman lather in the area, and for the Employer requesting the referral , and ability to perform the work" would be the factors considered, in a nondiscriminatory manner, in determining competence and experience. The written agreement does not state what relative weight will be given age, seniority in the area, seniority for the employer , and ability, and contains no provision for replacing a properly referred person with a person having greater "resident seniority " with the employer or in the area. In his opening statement at the trial, the General Counsel stated that even if the referral procedure "may be legal on its face," he would show that it was illegally applied in this case , and that the referral system, "as actually operated," would be brought in "as it bears .. . on what happened in this case ." Concerning the operation of the referral procedure at the time in question , Acting Business Agent Lavigne testified that when he was contacted at his home for a referral, he made each referral strictly from the top of the out-of-work list - referring first the person out of work the longest, and considering nothing else (i.e., disregarding the contractual criteria of age, seniority in the area, seniority for the employer, and ability). When asked, "Would you take into consideration whether a person was a member of Local 383, or of another local," he answered that a member of another local "wouldn't have his name on my list." (He claimed, however, that he did put Lovely's and Amirante' s names on his list after they were discharged, and testified that he would refer first those who have been working for the local contractors all year long.) Lavigne's testimony and other evidence revealed that despite Lavigne's denials, the Local did operate a permit system. When Lavigne was questioned about the "Working Permit" his brother, Garth, wrote out in longhand and gave to Lovely for the period, August 19-24 (and later, for the periods August 24-28 and September 9-13), Lavigne testified they were "written verifications to go to work" - although, I note, they were given to Lovely while he remained on the same job. (He later suggested that the dates were when Lovely paid the 20-cent-a-day business agent assessment, but when asked why the exhibits were worded, "working permit," he answered, "I didn't write them; I don't know.") When Lavigne was questioned about the purpose of the printed words, "DATE from .. . to ...... (filled in April 7" to "May 7, 68") on the Union's official referral form entitled "Written Verification," which had been given to Lovely earlier that year, Lavigne first responded, "I can't answer that," and then explained, "We give a man a permit from month to month, until his transfer - if he desires to transfer from his own local into our local, we give him a permit from month to month"; that "some people do not want to transfer out of another local into our local"; that such a person "pays his dues into his other local," and pays only "our B.A. assessment to our local, so maybe the next month, he'll put his transfer into our local." (The "Written Verification," with the name of the International written at the top, states "This will introduce , who is an applicant for membership ( ), who is a journeyman lather ( ), membership book No........ The second paragraph reads, "As relating to and affecting his membership only, he has voluntarily agreed to pay $ , per day until he pays in full his transfer indebtness ...... initiation fee ...... reinstatement fee dues ..... in the total amount of $ ") Lavigne testified that the member of an outside local is "supposed" to get the "written verification" renewed at the end of the month. When asked what happens when the referral runs out, Lavigne answered, "If he is on that job, he's allowed to stay there." At one point, the General Counsel asked Lavigne why he did not tell Tri-City "to take back Lovely and Amirante first" when Tri-City said it needed more men. Lavigne answered, "I've got the right to send them to any job I want to." The evidence recited in this paragraph is relied upon only insofar as it may bear on the allegations in the complaint that the Local caused Tri-City to discriminate against Lovely and Amirante because they lacked membership in the Local. Two union witnesses testified about an oral agreement being reached in a meeting in Lansing, Michigan, on June 28 (8 weeks after the May 3 lockout began). State Representative Wright testified that William Lavigne requested Tri-City President Charles DeVree in that LOCAL 383, LATHERS UNION 413 meeting "to call the Local , according to the Working Agreement" when the lockout was over , in order that the "men located in this geographical area" could split up the work, "working 2 or 3 days apiece , if necessary, until things got back to normal," and that DeVree agreed that "Lavigne would be notified , so that these men could be placed and the work split up among them ." Lavigne testified that he asked DeVree "if he was going to put our men back to work [first], that they were residents of Flint and with seniority with the companies"; that DeVree said he would ; and that " I was to place these men wherever I could place them ." (Emphasis supplied .) Thus, Wright and Lavigne both testified that Tri-City agreed to call Lavigne, who would place (or refer ) the lathers . However, I deem it significant that Lavigne referred to "our men" (evidently meaning members of the Local ) as those having resident seniority . Also, I note the reason given by Lavigne for requesting President DeVree to put "our men" back first . When asked by union counsel "why did you ask him this," he said nothing about an expected shortage of work, or about the "men located in this geographical area" splitting up the work "2 or 3 days apiece" (as claimed by Wright). Instead, Lavigne testified, "Because we had so much trouble with them before .. . Placing my men, without calling the . . . local" - indicating that . Lavigne' s primary concern was controlling the placement of all lathers in the area. G. Concluding Findings The evidence is clear that at the time Acting Business Agent William Lavigne caused Tri-City on July 16 to discharge journeymen Lovely and Amirante, he was not seeking work for any resident journeymen on the Sports Arena job. Lavigne was sure of only one Flint-area journeyman, Wolf, being out of work on July 16, and Wolf was not referred to the job. Despite Tri-City's request for more men, nobody was referred until several days later, when Lavigne referred his brother, Blaine, who undoubtedly would have been referred immediately if he had been seeking work on July 16. At the time of Blaine Lavigne's referral, Tri-City admittedly had made a request for three men on the Sports Arena job. Yet the Local still did not refer Lovely and Amirante, nor anyone else to the job until about 2 or 3 weeks after the discharges, when it next referred out-of-state journeyman Ruggins, and then journeyman Melvin Wright. Thus, when the Local induced the discharge of Lovely and Amirante on July 16, and thereafter withheld referrals from them for 4 weeks, it was not motivated by a desire to give preference in employment to local residents. Such a motivation is belied by the failure of the Local to refer any replacements immediately, by Lavigne later referring only one person when admittedly three men had been requested on the job, and by the Local referring an out-of-state lather while still withholding referrals from Lovely and Amirante (whom Tri-City had discharged in order to avoid "union troubles" during the labor shortage, and for whom Tri-City was seeking referrals to the job.) This is not a case where nonresident members of other locals were discharged for failure to obtain referrals through a hiring hall. Lovely and Amirante were already employees of Tri-City; they had been properly referred to the Sports Arena job; they worked there about a month before being laid off because of the May 3 lockout; and they were recalled, not rehired. (The cases cited in the Local's brief are inapposite.) There was nothing in the written Working Agreement requiring new referrals through the Local, and they had no notice of any oral agreement to the contrary. In his brief, the General Counsel contends that the "purported" oral agreement, "arrived at long after the Charging Parties were hired," would not justify their discharge because "It is established that to cause the discharge of an employee by retroactive application of a hiring-hall agreement not in existence when he was hired is a violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act," citing Teamsters Local 767 (Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Co.), 172 NLRB No. 58. However, I find it unnecessary to rule on this contention, in view of my other findings. The June 28 oral agreement, according to both State Representative Wright and Acting Business Agent Lavigne, required Tri-City to call Lavigne for lathers and to permit Lavigne to "place the men," rather than for Tri-City to recall the crew which had worked on the Sports Arena job before the lockout. But when Lavigne went to the job on July 16, he was not seeking to enforce that agreement nor, as found above, to obtain employment for Flint residents. He said nothing about Tri-City ignoring the referral procedure and recalling from layoff one journeyman and two apprentices - who he knew were active members of the Local. He questioned the recall of only Lovely and Amirante, who he knew were nonmembers of the Local, and journeyman Frank Knight, who had been working in Florida and who Lavigne thought had taken a transfer from the Local. As soon as he learned that Knight was an active member of the Local, that settled the matter. Lavigne said nothing about discharging Knight and the three other union members until they could be properly referred by the Local. He insisted only on the discharge of the two nonmembers. There was no discussion of whether the prelockout employment of Lovely and Amirante with Tri-City should be considered "resident seniority ... for the Employer requesting the referral" (in the language of the written referral procedure), as compared with the contractual "resident seniority . . . in the area" and "for the Employer" of anybody on the out-of-work list. While contending at one place in its brief that Lavigne's "interest was in securing compliance with Tri-City's agreement to hire through the Union," the Local elsewhere in its brief seems to concede that the Union was concerned only with having only two of the six employees being referred again, arguing: "We submit that the evidence is clear that the Union complained on July 16, 1968, that Tri-City Acoustical Company violated its agreement with the Union by placing the two charging parties on this job without calling the Union and without giving preference to residents of the Flint area." (Emphasis supplied.) As previously found, when Lavigne admittedly stated at the June 28 meeting that "our men" were the "residents of Flint . . . with seniority with the companies," he was referring to members of the Local. I further find that when Lavigne went on the job on July 16 and complained about the oral agreement being violated and about "local men" being out of work, it was obvious that he was referring to men in the Local; that when he questioned the right of journeyman Frank Knight to be on the job until learning that Knight was an active member of the Local - therefore not needing a permit - it was obvious that union membership was controlling; and that when Lavigne refused for 4 weeks to refer the two nonmembers back to the job, as discussed above, there could be no doubt that they were being discriminated against because of their nonmembership in the Local. I therefore reject the Local's 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contention in its brief that "There was no deliberate attempt by the Union to deprive them of work opportunities" and that the "record certainly does not show any attempt by the Union to discriminate against these two individuals or to deprive them of employment opportunities." Moreover, the manner in which the referral system was being operated confirms the discrimination against Lovely and Amirante as nonmembers. The factors or criteria for referring journeymen were ignored in referring union members, who were referred strictly on a first-in, first-out basis from the out-of-work list but, in Lavigne's words, a nonmember "wouldn't have his name on my list." In referring nonmembers , no consideration was given to the contractual factors of age and ability, nor to "resident seniority" as defined, but Lavigne would refer first those who have been working for the local contractors all year long. (Although the written referral procedure states that referrals shall not be based on union membership, the failure of the agreement to state what relative weight should be given to age, seniority in the area , seniority for the employer, and ability, suggest that these contractual criteria were intended as merely a facade, and not intended to be the actual basis for making referrals.) Furthermore, as contended by the General Counsel in his brief, the Local "did not maintain such records as would enable it to objectively and fairly operate a referral system based on some such criterion as `resident seniority ' either when the Charging Parties were put off the job July 16 or ... after that date." In addition , the Local' s permit system (not mentioned in the Working Agreement) shows a strong motivation for Acting Business Manager Lavigne 's requiring Lovely and Amirante to be discharged and to be referred again through the referral procedure, whereas the union members were permitted to remain on the job without referrals. The requirement by Lavigne that the permit (or "Written Verification") be renewed by nonmembers each month, and by Garth Lavigne that the "Working Permit" to be renewed each week , impressed upon nonmembers the advantage of transferring their membership and paying dues to the Local. If Lovely and Amirante had not been required to get a union permit before continuing to work for Tri-City, there would not be this inducement for Lovely to finish paying his reinstatement fee, and Amirante to transfer his membership. Accordingly I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that when the Local caused Tri-City to discharge Lovely and Amirante, and refused for 4 weeks to refer them back to the Sports Arena job, it caused Tri-City unlawfully to discriminate against them because they lacked membership in the Local, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. However, I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that the Local caused Tri-City again to discriminate against Lovely on January 9, 1969, when the union steward threatened a walkout if Lovely went to work without signing the charge withdrawal request . (The January 9 incident was not alleged or litigated as a separate Section 8 (b)(1)(A) violation.) thereby engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and ( l)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Remedy Having found that the Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct, and to take affirmative action , which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effect of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having unlawfully caused Tri-City Acoustical Company to terminate Donald E . Lovely and James P. Amirante on July 16, 1968, and to deny them employment through August 13, 1968 , I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to make the two employees whole for any loss of earnings from July 16 through August 13, 1968, computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289, with interest at 6 percent per annum as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 716, and to notify Tri-City that the Respondent has no objection to their employment. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and on the entire record, I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following: ORDER Respondent, Local No. 383, Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives , and successors, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Tri-City Acoustical Company, or any other employer, to discharge, deny employment to, or otherwise discriminate against any nonmember of Local 383 for not having a referral, written verification, or working permit which is not required of members of the Local. (b) Refusing to refer any journeyman lather because of nonmembership in the Local. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing nonmembers in the exercise of their rights as employees under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Donald E. Lovely and James P. Amirante as provided in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Tri-City Acoustical Company in writing, with a copy to Lovely and to Amirante, that it has no objection to.Tri-City employing them. (c) Mail to its members, and post at its meeting place, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of such notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan), after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By causing Tri-City to discharge Lovely and Amirante on July 16 and to refuse them employment from July 16 through August 13 because of nonmembership in the Local, the Local has caused Tri-City to discriminate against them in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." LOCAL 383, LATHERS UNION Respondent, shall be mailed and posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the posted notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Upon request of the Regional Director, the Respondent shall supply him with a sufficient number of signed copies for posting by Tri-City Acoustical Company if Tri-City so desires. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges any violation of the Act not specifically found herein. 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: 415 WE WILL NOT require a nonmember of Local 383 to have a working permit, referral, or written verification to work on any job when not requiring a Local member to have one. WE WILL NOT refuse to refer any journeyman lather to a job because of his nonmembership in the Local. WE WILL pay Donald E. Lovely and James P. Amirante for earnings lost as a result of our causing Tri-City Acoustical Co. to discharge them on July 16, 1968, and our failure to refer them back to the Sports Arena job. WE WILL notify Tri-City we have no objection to it employing Mr. Lovely and Mr. Amirante. Dated By LOCAL No. 383, WOOD, WIRE, AND METAL LATHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3244.