Rondicken, Inc.

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rondicken, Inc. and Harold Cohen Local 435, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Eddie Barnes. Cases 3-CA--4649 and 3-CB-1722 July 10, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On March 9, 1972, Trial Examiner Lloyd S. Greenidge issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Union filed exceptions and a 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent Rondicken, Inc., Girard, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respon- dent Local 435, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Rochester, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommend- ed Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LLOYD S. GREENIDGE, Trial Examiner: This consolidated proceeding was heard at Buffalo, New York, on December 16, 1971, pursuant to a charge filed in Case 3-CB-1722 by Eddie Barnes on August 25, 1971, and a charge filed in Case 3-CA-4649 by Harold Cohen on November 2, 1971. With respect to Local 435, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Union or Local 435, the complaint in Case 3-CB-1722 alleges that it violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by attempting to cause, and causing, Respondent Company to discharge employee Eddie Barnes, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, in that it requested and caused Barnes' discharge because he was not a member of Respondent Union at a time when he was not required under the Act to be a member of, or to pay dues to, said Union, With respect to Rondicken, Inc., herein called Respondent Company or the Company, the complaint in Case 3-CA-4649 alleges that it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging or laying off Barnes, pursuant to a request made by Respondent Union because he was not a member of the Union at a time when he was not required under the Act to be a member of, or to pay dues and initiation fees to, said Union. All parties were duly served by registered mail with copies of the complaints, order consolidating cases, notice of hearing, and statement of standard procedures in formal hearings before the National Labor Relations Board. Despite the foregoing, no representative for the Respon- dent Union or the Charging Party in Case 3-CA-4649 appeared at the hearing. At the close of the hearing, the General Counsel renewed an earlier motion for summary judgment in Case 3-CB-1722 on the ground that the Respondent Union had failed to file an answer to the complaint and did not appear at the hearing to present a defense to the allegations therein. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on the motion. After the hearing in this matter was concluded, Respon- dent Union filed an answer and the General Counsel withdrew his motion thus rendering moot a ruling on the motion. The same day, December 20, Harold Cohen, the Charging Party in Case 3-CA-4649 and counsel for Respondent Union, submitted to the Trial Examiner a request in the form of a motion. In substance the motion sought to reopen the record to permit Respondent Union to present "a meritorious defense" and assigned as reasons therefor the following: Initially, counsel thought the matter would be heard in Rochester where he maintains an office; although ill, counsel told the General Counsel, in a telephone conversation the morning of the hearing, that he would make the trip to Buffalo and the General Counsel stated that he would inform the Trial Examiner to this effect (The Trial Examiner was not so advised.); and counsel arrived at the Regional Office shortly after the hearing had terminated. On December 22, the Trial Examiner issued an order to show cause why the motion of Respondent Union should not be granted. No opposition having been received, the motion was granted; and, on notice to all parties, the Trial Examiner ordered that the record be reopened for the purpose of permitting Respondent Union to present its defense and that the hearing be resumed before him at Buffalo, New York, on February 10. The General Counsel, Respondent Union, and Charging Party in Case 3-CA-4649 were represented at the resumed hearing, but no representative for Respondent Company or the Charg- ing Party in Case 3-CB-1722 attended the hearing. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while on the witness stand, and after due consideration of the briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent 'Union, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent Company, an Ohio corporation with its 198 NLRB No. 25 RONDICKEN, INC. principal office in Girard, Ohio, is engaged in the building and construction industry as a labor subcontractor; and, at all times material herein, pursuant to a contract valued in excess of $500,000 with D-K-R Investments, Respondent Company has assisted in the construction of a shopping center in Albion, New York, herein called the Albion shopping center. During the past year, a representative period, Respon- dent Company, in performance of its contract with D-K-R, purchased and received at its New York operations directly from sources outside the State of New York materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000. Upon the above admitted facts, I find that Respondent Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaints allege, the answers admit, and I find that Local 435, Laborers International Union of North Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I find further, as the complaints allege and the answers also admit, that, at all times material herein, George E. Gordon and Samuel Thompson, Respondent Union's business representative and shop steward, respectively, have been agents of Respondent Union within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act; and that Ronald Burdman, president of Respondent Company, has been an agent of Respondent Company at the Albion shopping center and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence' On an unspecified date, Respondent Company entered into a contract with D-K-R Investments to perform laborer work on a project at Albion, New York. This was the Company's first such venture in western New York. Construction of the project began about June 1, 1971, and, as of the date of the hearing, the Company was in the final stage of completing its work under the contract. In late May or early June 1971, President Ronald Burdman told Eddie Barnes and Curtis Rauschenbach, both longtime employees of Respondent Company and residents of Youngstown, Ohio, that he desired to have them come to the Albion job to work as laborers. Barnes was a member of a sister local of Respondent Union in Warren, Ohio. Burdman explained at the hearing that he was prepared to hire additional help in the laborer classification at the jobsite or through the union hiring hall. On or about June 1, Burdman telephoned Gordon and, in the conversation that ensued, told the business agent that the site would be cleared shortly and advised as to what he intended to do with regard to the employment of laborers. Gordon visited the construction project on Friday, June 4, and had a prejob conference with Burdman. At the outset, the business agent presented two copies of the 101 Union's proposed contract to Burdman and asked him to sign them. Burdman accepted the document but, according to Burdman, stated that he wanted his attorney to examine it. As Gordon recalled, Burdman merely said that he would review the contract first to determine what fringe benefit payments were required and then establish appropriate records for this purpose. At some point in the conversation, Burdman told Gordon that one Sadari had applied for work and asked Gordon what he should do. Gordon replied "He's from right in town here. Put him to work." So saying, Sadari was hired by Burdman that day. It was finally agreed that Rauschenbach would be the laborer foreman and Samuel Thompson would be the shop steward on the job. Barnes started to work for the Company at the Albion jobsite on June 7. Sometime the same day, or 1 or 2 days later, Burdman introduced Steward Thompson to Barnes. At some point in the conversation, Barnes told Thompson that he had left his union book at home but would bring it the following week. On several occasions later the same week, Thompson reminded Burdman that Barnes "wasn't from the Local" and, consequently, that there was a question whether Burdman would be able to keep him. In addition, in the same period, Thompson reported to the Local that the Company had hired a laborer from out of the area. On June 11, Gordon again visited the jobsite and, on this occasion, held conversations with Burdman and Barnes, In the beginning, Gordon complained that he had not received a signed contract from the Company, pointed out to Burdman contract language with respect to area residence, and then mentioned the subject of Barnes working at the site. After this, Gordon announced that "we have eleven hundred men in our Local that are loafing, they've got to go to work first." Burdman protested and related that Barnes was a regular employee of the Company. Unmoved, Gordon repeated in substance his earlier remarks, adding "we don't want to have trouble on the job." He also advised that an election was pending and that there was pressure on union agents to enforce the contract. Again, Burdman complained, now saying that he could not understand why Barnes had to leave, the demand for his discharge was illegal, and Barnes had the same right to work as anyone else. Gordon was adamant, however, and insisted that Burdman "get rid of Barnes." Burdman refused and told Gordon to relay the message himself. Barnes was then summoned to the meeting and, shortly thereafter, Gordon told Barnes, in the presence of Burdman, "You can't stay. My men are out of work." This said, Gordon directed the alleged discriminatee to "go home and don't come back next week." Barnes asked if he was being "knocked off" the job and Gordon answered "temporarily you may be." Burdman then inquired if Barnes could return at a later date. To this, Gordon replied "Yes, after a couple weeks, after the election and things cool off...." Amplifying, Gordon reiterated that there was substantial unemployment in the area, stated that "we would be crucified [in] the election if a stranger comes in and takes bread out of the mouths of the people who are I Unless otherwise indicated, the findings set forth under this section are based on credited testimony which is either admitted or undisputed. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD waiting right here to go to work . . ." and advised that "our livelihood depends on supplying these people with work." In the end, Burdman and Barnes requested a delay in the latter's departure. Gordon granted the request and permitted Barnes. to remain until the end of the workday.2 On the way back to Ohio on June It, Burdman told Barnes it would be futile for him to return to the job "because its a war" but if he did and was once again instructed by Gordon to leave, the Company would provide him with a return ticket to Youngstown. In a telephone conversation with Burdman on June 13, Barnes expressed uneasiness about the prospect of returning to the job and stated that he would "wait and see what [Burdman] do and if [Gordon] tells me to come back...." Every weekend, for about 3 weeks after June 11, Burdman asked Gordon, according to the credited account of the former, if Barnes could return to work. First, Gordon equivocated and then said "No." For his part, Barnes made like inquiries of Burdman in the same period and finally Burdman declared "No, you can't work up there." Respondent Union and Building Trades Employers Association, a Division of the Builders Exchange of Rochester, New York, Inc., are parties to a collective- bargaining agreement effective from May 1, 1970, to April 30, 1972. On June 16, 1971, Respondent Company, by memorandum, accepted and agreed to abide by and enforce the aforesaid agreement. The June 16 memoran- dum has a space for the signature of a representative of Respondent Union but the Union did not sign the memorandum. So far as relevant here, the provisions of the basic agreement are set forth below: ARTICLE V SUPPLY OF LABORERS . 4. The employer agrees that in providing opportu- nity for employment it shall give priority to persons who have had one year or more of service since January 1, 1969 in the building and construction industry in the type of work covered by this Agreement and in the geographic area defined in the Preamble of this Agreement. - When` layoffs or cutbacks in employment are necessary, those persons not entitled to the' above priority shall be released first.- The - Employer and the Union agree that the foregoing priority shall be exercised without regard to union membership'or non-membership. Gordon and his slate of candidates were successful in the election held on June 18 but, from all that appears, the Union has never withdrawn its objection to the Company's employment of Barnes at the Albionjobsite. 2 I find the facts with respect to the exit interview from credited testimony of Burdman and Barnes, as corroborated in part by admissions of Gordon Testimony of the latter in conflict with the findings is not credited. Gordon denied that he told Barnes to leave the site and asserted that Barnes was discharged by Burdman. The denial finds no support in the record and it is not credited for several reasons After Burdman refused to discharge B. Conclusions Under settled authority, absent noncompliance with a lawful union-security provision, a labor organization violates Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act when it attempts to cause or causes an employer to discriminate against an employee because of his nonmembership in a labor organization, and an employer violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when it yields to coercive pressure of a labor organization and discharges an employee for this reason. As previously shown, Barnes was a member of an out-of- state local. Shortly after he began to work at the Albion jobsite, Shop Steward Thompson approached Burdman and stated that Barnes "wasn't from the Local." A few days later, Business Representative Gordon told Burdman that there was substantial unemployment among the members of "our Local" and they have to go to work first, and that there was pressure on him to enforce the contract due to the pendency of a union election and the Company would have to "get rid of Barnes." Burdman explained that Barnes was a longtime employee with a legitimate claim to the work but Gordon cautioned "we don't want to have trouble on the job." Finally, Gordon told Barnes that he could not stay and ordered him" to go home and don't come back next week." It is true that the words of discharge were uttered by Gordon but this was only because Burdman delegated to the Union the Company's exclusive authority to discharge. The Company thereby made the Union its agent in this regard and is jointly responsible with the Union for the results thereof. Moreover, the discharge action was later ratified by Burdman when he told Barnes that he could not return to work. On these facts, the General Counsel contends that the Respondents violated the Act because Barnes' discharge reflected a decision by them to discriminate against him for the reason that he was not a member of Respondent Union, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondents were not contractually obligated to do so. The contentions are amply supported by the record as made. I accept the concession of Respondent Union that there was no written collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the Company at any time relevant herein. Respondent Union argues, however, that at times material there was in fact an oral agreement between the parties relating tojob priorities for area residents. At the outset it is necessary to observe that an agreement of the sort here in dispute 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 mutually assume-concomitant obliga- tions...." See Hoisting and Portable Engineers, Local 302 (West Coast Steel Works), 144 NLRB 1449, 1452; Local Union No. 106, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Barnes, Gordon talked to Barnes . According to Gordon, Barnes was "very receptive" to whatever Gordon told him and asserted he understood "the procedures" It is admitted Gordon advised Barnes the discharge was temporary and, following this, granted him an extension of time to depart. In the light of the admissions, I cannot and do not accept Gordon's denial of the credited testimony RONDICKEN, INC. Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Otis Elevator Company), 132 NLRB 1444, 1448. In support of its position that there was a verbal understanding with the Company providing for preferen- tial hiring of area residents, Respondent Union offered testimony by Gordon to the effect that at the prejob conference on June 4 Burdman Stated he would abide by the contract and follow it to the letter. However, Burdman also stated, again according to Gordon, that he would study the document. As already reported, Burdman testified that he told Gordon he would give the contract to his lawyer for inspection and approval. I have not the slightest hesitancy in crediting the candid, straightforward, and plausible testimony of Burdman. By contrast, Cor- don's credibility was seriously impaired by retractions, contradictions, and inherent inconsistencies . Thus, for one thing, in a pretrial statement Gordon averred that on the day of the discharge he "appeared on the job to police the signed contract which had been received by the local union...." At the hearing, he testified that he had not received a signed contract as of that date. For another, it stretches credulity too far to believe that Burdman would agree to be bound by a document he had not studied. For still another, notwithstanding the alleged agreement, Burdman transported Barnes to the jobsite the workday following the prejob conference. And finally, the Company refused to acknowledge the existence of any agreement as a basis for discharging Barnes and succumbed to the Union's demand only because of a threat of coercive pressure evidenced by Gordon's warning to Burdman that "we don't want to have trouble on the job." In view of the foregoing, as well as demeanor, I do not regard Gordon's testimony in conflict with the credited account of Burdman to be reliable, and I do not credit him. Thus, I find that at the time Barnes was discharged there was no contract, arrangement, or course of conduct which would establish a lawful preferential hiring agreement between the parties on the basis of area residence. See International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local #300, AFL-CIO (Martin Bros.), 123 NLRB 1231, 1235, enforcement denied 287 F.2d 605 (C.A. 9). The Company's conduct in hiring Sadari, a local man, and Thompson, designated shop steward, was merely a bow to business realties . International Hod Carriers, Local #300 (Martin Bros.), supra. Under all the circumstances, I deem it ' unnecessary to decide whether the memorandum signed by the Company on June 16, assuming contrary to the evidence that it was executed by the Union at that time, must be held to have retroactive effect because it was in fact signed after Barnes was discharged. It comes at last to this, the evidence warrants the conclusion that in demanding Barnes' discharge Respon- dent Union was not motivated by any desire to enforce a 3 See Norman Fromme, d/b/a Norman Fromme Masonry Contractor, 183 NLRB No. 83; Ferro v. Railway Express Agency, 296 F1d 847, 851 (CA 2), Truck Divers and Helpers, Local Union 568, IBT (Red Ball Motor Freight v. N. I. R B 379 F 2d 137, 142 (C.A D C ); distinguish Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America, (Plaza Builders, Incorporated), 134 NLRB 751, 753, 754, and Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America, Local No 1, AFL-CIO (Wilputte Coke Oven Division, Allied Chemical Corporation), 135 NLRB 323, 324. In Plaza Builders and Wilputte Coke Oven, the discharge or layoff of employees was 103 right under an agreement-there was no agreement with the Company at any time pertinent-but instead was solely motivated by the fact that many of the Local members were out of work and a union election was pending and by the fact that it wanted one of its unemployed members to replace Barnes because he was an out-of-town man and it was politically expedient to do so.3 It follows that Respondent Union's insistence on the discharge of Barnes necessarily encourages his membership in the Umon and discourages his membership in the out-of-town local. Accordingly, I find that by its conduct Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act and, by causing the Company to engage in such unlawful conduct, the Respondent Union engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. e IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent Company set forth in section III, 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. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Eddie Barnes on June 11, 1971, because of his nonmembership in Respondent Union, Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By causing the Respondent Company to discharge Eddie Barnes on June 11 in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Eddie Barnes was deprived of employment after June I1 which he otherwise would have had, I shall recommend that Respondent Company offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job; or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent motivated by a desire to enforce the' objective criterion" of area residence Nonmembership in the local of the area was not a causative factor. Distinguish also International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local 7, AFL-CIO (Yonkers Contracting Co, Inc), 135 NLRB 865, 866-867; New York Typographical Union, Number Six, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (Lawrence F. Cafero), 144 NLRB 1555, 1556-59, enfd. 336 F 2d 115 (C.A 2); General Drivers and Helpers Local Union No 229, affiliated with IBT (Associated Transport, Inc), 185 NLRB No. 84. 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. I shall also recommend that Respondent Union notify Respondent Company, in writing, with a copy to Eddie Barnes, that it will not object to Barnes' employment in the future because of his nonmembership in Respondent Union. I shall further recommend that the Respondents, jointly and severally, make Eddie Barnes whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. Loss of pay shall be determined in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, including interest thereon at 6 percent per annum in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, I shall also recommend that the Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: 4 ORDER A. Respondent Company, Rondicken, Inc., Girard, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees, in compliance with a union demand or for any other reason, on the basis of their nonmembership in a union. (b) Encouraging membership in Local 435, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees for not being members of Local 435 or any other union. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Eddie Barnes immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) 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 Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Jointly and severally with the above -named Respon- dent Union, and in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," make Eddie Barnes whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by, reason of the discrimination against him. (d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the 4 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. S In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (e) Post at its place of business at Girard, Ohio, and at its jobsite at Albion, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Company, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (e) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent Union's attached notice marked "Appendix B." (g) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" for posting by Respondent Union in all its business offices, meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Company, be returned forthwith to the Regional director for disposition by him. (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith .6 B. Respondent Union, Local 435, Laborers Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Rondicken, Inc., or any other employer, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees in any way because of their nonmem- bership in Respondent Union. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in their exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Jointly and severally with the above-named Respon- dent Company and in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy" make Eddie Barnes whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. (b) Notify Rondicken, Inc., in writing, with a copy to Eddie Barnes, that Respondent Union has no objection to Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 6 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith " RONDICKEN, INC. the employment of Barnes by Respondent Company in the future. (c) Post in conspicuous places in all of Respondent Union's business offices, meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Union, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Post at the same place and under the same conditions as set forth in (c) above, and as soon as forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent Company's attached notice marked "Appendix A." (e) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B" for posting by Respondent Company at its place of business in Girard, Ohio, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and at its jobsite at Albion, New York. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa- tive of Respondent Union, be returned forthwith to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.8 I In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 8 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer Eddie Barnes immediate and full reinstatement to his formerjob or, if thatjob no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL NOT discharge employees on compliance with a union demand or for any other reason, on the basis of their nonmembership in a union. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 435, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, by discriminating against any employee for not being a member of the aforenamed labor union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 105 WE WILL pay, jointly and severally with Local 435, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, to Eddie Barnes the earnings which he lost as a result of our discrimination against him, plus 6- percent interest. 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 applica- tion, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training Act, as amended after discharge from the Armed Forces. Dated By RONDICKEN, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, The Federal Building, 9th Floor, Ill West Huron Street, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100. APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Rondicken, Inc., or any other employer, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees on the basis of their nonmembership in our Local. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL notify Rondicken, Inc., in writing, with a copy to Eddie Barnes, that we have no objection to Barnes' employment by Rondicken, Inc., in the future. WE WILL pay, jointly and severally with Rondicken, Inc., to Eddie Barnes the earning which he lost as a result of our discrimination against him, plus 6-percent interest. LOCAL 435 LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, The or covered by any other material . Federal Building, 9th Floor, 111 West Huron Street, Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100.