Castleman and Bates, Inc.

CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC 477 Castleman and Bates, Inc. and Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., and Francis I. Redman Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO and Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., and Francis I. Redman. Cases 1-CA-7879-1,1-CA-7879-2,1-CA-7879-3,1-CB- 1887-1, 1-CB-1887-2, and I-CB-1887-3 November 28, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On June 2, 1972, Administrative Law Judge 1 Josephine H. Klein issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent Employer filed exceptions. 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge2 and to adopt her recommended Order, as herein modified.3 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 Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Associ- ation, AFL-CIO, Providence, Rhode Island, its officers, agents, and representatives , and Respondent Castleman and Bates , Inc., East Providence, Rhode Island, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Insert the following as paragraphs A, 2(a) and (b) and reletter the subsequent paragraphs "(a) Keep permanent records of its hiring and referral operations which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis on which each referral is made. "(b) Upon request of the Regional Director of the Board or his agents, make available for inspection, at all reasonable times, any records relating in any way to the hiring and referral system." 2. Substitute the attached Appendix B for the Administrative Law Judge's Appendix B. I The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972 2 Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby denied because the record , the exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties 3 As the record shows that the Union sometimes made referrals from "memory," periodically discarded records, and was only beginning to set up a "new system" of an unspecified nature 2 months after "losing" the records in December 1971, we agree with the General Counsel that the Union should be required to maintain readily accessible job referral records We shall therefore modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order and the Union's notice accordingly Member Kennedy agrees that the Company and the Union be held jointly and severally responsible for loss of wages suffered by the Charging Parties as a result of Respondents' discriminatory action In Williams Press, inc, 195 NLRB No 159, where Member Kennedy would have made the union primarily liable for making the discrimmatees whole, the employer resisted the union's action and told the discnmmatees that they could have recourse to the Board In the instant proceeding , however, the Company's resistance to the Union's demand that the Charging Parties be terminated was short-lived at best and, as the Administrative Law Judge found, in attempting to show that the Charging Parties were released because they were not "qualified," the Company actively participated in the Union's scheme to disguise the fact that it was discnmmatonly operating an exclusive hiring hall APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all parties had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice-and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise give effect to an exclusive hiring or clearance arrangement or practice with Castleman and Bates, Inc., or any other employer, where prefer- ence in referral to or retention of employment is based on union membership. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Castleman and Bates, Inc., or any other employer to discriminate against Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., or Francis I. Redman, or any other employee or applicant for employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, jointly and severally with Castleman and Bates, Inc., make whole Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., and Francis I. Redman for loss of pay they suffered on April 26 and 27, 1971, because of our failure to refer them to employment and for any loss of pay they suffered 200 NLRB No. 72 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as a result of the termination of their employment by Castleman and Bates, Inc., on May 7, 1971. WE WILL make the above-named applicants for employment whole for loss of pay they suffered as a result of our failure or refusal to refer them to available employment after May 7, 1971. WE WILL give written notification to Castleman and Bates, Inc., and to all employers with whom we have collective-bargaining agreements that we have no objection to their employing the above- named applicants for employment. WE WILL notify each of the above-named applicants for employment that we have no objection to their employment by Castleman and Bates, Inc., or any other employer with whom we have a collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL keep permanent records of our hiring and referral operations which will be adequate to disclose fully the basis on which each referral is made. WE WILL, upon request of the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, or his agents, make available for inspection, at all reasonable times, any records relating in any way to the hiring and referral system. LOCAL 17, SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 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 from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Bulfinch Building, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-3300. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOSEPHINE H. KLEIN, Trial Examiner: Upon six charges filed on September 21, 1971,i by Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., and Francis I. Redman (Charging Parties), a consolidated complaint was issued on December 22 by the Regional Director for Region I against ^ Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein are in 1971 2 National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat 136, 73 Stat 519, 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq ) 3 Although the complaint alleges that the Charging Parties were "laid Castleman and Bates, Inc. (C & B), and Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO (the Union), alleging that on May 7 the Union, in contraven- tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act,2 caused C & B to discharge3 the Charging Parties in violation of Section 8(a)(3) because they were not members of the Union. Upon due notice, a hearing was held on February 10, 11, and 14, 1972, in Providence, Rhode Island. On February 11, 1972, at the close of his case, the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to add an allegation that the Union had been discriminatorily operating a hiring hall since March 22 (i.e., for the period open under Section 10(b) of the Act). The Trial Examiner denied the motion to amend and proceeded with the hearing. On March 16, 1972, upon appeal by the General Counsel, the Board reversed the Trial Examiner's ruling and directed the Trial Examiner "to reopen hearing if Respondent so moves." No motion to reopen the record was filed. Since the hearing, briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and both Respondents. Upon the entire record, observation of the witnesses, and consideration of the briefs, the Trial Examiner makes the following. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS A Castleman and Bates, Inc., a Rhode Island corpora- tion with its principal office and place of business in East Providence, Rhode Island, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, installation, and distribution of sheetmetal fabricated products and related products In the course and conduct of its business, C & B annually ships directly to points outside Rhode Island goods valued in excess of $50,000. C & B is, and was at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. B. Respondent Union is, and was at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Chronology and Issues The Charging Parties are not and never have been members of Respondent Union.4 Despite their nonmem- bership in the Union , during the past several years all three men have worked , on union referral or with union knowledge and approval , on jobs covered by collective- bargaining agreements with the Union . All three have made attempts, so far unsuccessful , to join the Union, both before and after the events here involved . Despite the existence of a valid 7-day union-secunty clause in the contract covering all thejobs , none of the Charging Parties has ever been asked to pay dues or initiation fees in the Union and the Union has never made any attempt to have them discharged for nonpayment or nontender. Contractu- off," it was agreed throughout the hearing that they were actually terminated or discharged ' The record indicates that in the past Shillmsky had been a member of two sister locals of Respondent Union CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC ally required pension and insurance fund payments have been made for them. On several occasions Shilltnsky and Redman had worked for Blake Construction Company, a predecessor of Respondent C & B. Henry R. Dumas, C & B's general superintendent, had served in the same capacity for Blake. For about a year before April 23, 1971, the Charging Parties were employed as sheetmetal workers by a company named Planair, which is also in a contractual relationship with the Union. They were laid off, along with other employees, as of April 23. Shillinsky and Redman then secured jobs with C & B through applying directly to Dumas. They went to work for C & B on April 28, after having obtained "clearance" from Robert M. Peters, then the Union's business representative in Rhode Island. Lagasse also went to work for C & B on April 28, having been referred to the job by Peters On April 29, Francis Riley, a member of the Union, was hired by C & B on referral by Peters. On May 4, Paul Horner and Chester Aldrich, also union members, were hired by C & B on referral by Peters.5 On May 7 the Charging Parties were discharged On May 12, Paul Hassell and Hugh Moore, union members, were hired, also on referral by Peters.6 On May 14 C & B discharged employees Joseph Farnas and Roland Lassonde, who were basically carpenters by trade and had been hired by C & B in March to perform unskilled work. The General Counsel and Charging Parties maintain that, following an established pattern, the Union permitted the Charging Parties to work for C & B only when and only for so long as there were no union members available and desirous of work. The Charging Parties were allegedly discharged upon pressure from the Union to provide employment for union members who had become available after the Charging Parties were hired According to the complaint, as amended pursuant to the Board's ruling, the treatment afforded the Charging Parties was part of Respondent Union's illegal operation of a hiring hall. Respondents deny that the Union had any role in causing the discharges. According to Respondents, the Charging Parties were terminated solely because they were not "qualified" or competent to perform the work available after April 28. B. Evidence and Findings Although there was some minor variation in the extent of the Charging Parties' precise recollection, their collective testimony in the main is mutually corroborative, to the following effect. Around the middle of April, having learned of the probability of a general layoff at Planair, where he was then working, Redman visited C & B, where he spoke to Dumas, under whom he had previously worked on several occasions Being in need of employees, Dumas expressed pleasure at the prospect of Redman's becoming available. Dumas asked Redman what "card men" (i.e., union members) would also be laid off and then said that Redman could go to work for C & B as soon as the union 5 Employers' reports to the union insurance funds show that Riley worked for another company for 3 days during the month ending May 29, and Horner and Aldrich worked for another company for 4 days during 479 members were otherwise employed. When Redman said that Shillinsky, who also had worked for Dumas in the past, would also be available, Dumas said that he too could have a job with C & B. With the layoff of Planair effective on April 23, the three Charging Parties went to the union hall on the morning of Monday, April 26. Peters said there was no work available for them. Redman and Shillinsky then went to C & B. According to Shilltnsky, Dumas did not want to hire the union members who he had learned were then available . Dumas said that when those union members had been hired by somebody else, C & B would hire Redman and Shillinsky. They returned to the union hall the next day and again were told there was no available work. At that point Shillinsky asked Peters if all union members were employed and if it would be all right to look for a job on his own. Peters said all the card men were employed and Shilltnsky was free to seek his own job. At that point Shillinsky and Redman again visited C & B. Upon being informed that all the union members were working, Dumas told the two men to report for work the next day, but to clear with Peters before then. They telephoned Peters, who said it was all right for Shilltnsky to go to work, but Redman was to report to the union office immediately. Redman did so and finally received Peters' clearance. At the same time, Peters referred Lagasse to C & B. Unlike Redman and Shillinsky, Lagasse had never previously worked for Dumas. Peters testified that the reason he required Redman to visit the union hall personally on April 27, rather than giving him approval on the telephone as he did in the case of Shillinsky, was his annoyance because Redman, without consulting or informing Peters, had gone out and secured the job with C & B while he was still employed with Planair. Peters testified that when Redman went to the union hall pursuant to instructions, the two men had "quite a discussion . . . [a]bout the way [Redmanj procured jobs." Peters' testimony continued: . . he has one job and he goes to this other one. I mean, I don't think it's right that people should have two jobs at the same time-a Job in the hand and a job in his pocket, when there is other people looking for employment. . . . Because we have to service all the people that are in our union, and all the people that are applying for work. There is a fair way of distributing work, to my thinking anyway. At another point, however, Peters explained the require- ment that Redman report to the union office as follows: . . it is clearance from the union because we have contractual agreements with all these employees which health and welfare pension funds, vacation money is withheld from their wages . . . and I have to see that these employers pay to the various funds. And [the] only way I know is to know where the men are working. But Peters then said that he did not require Shilltnsky to report to the union hall because Peters had "[a]ll the confidence in the world" that C & B would comply with the contract. that month 6 They had worked for Planair 6 days in the month ending May 24 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Perhaps the closest Peters came to revealing the true reason for his having Redman report to the union office was the statement that he wanted to "chastise" Redman for having on his own secured ajob that "might be available to one of our more qualified men." Other portions of Peters' testimony make clear that "more qualified" is actually a euphemism or circumlocution for "Union " For example, when asked why he had never sought to enforce the union- security provision of the collective-bargaining agreement with respect to the Charging Parties when they had worked for about a year for Planair, Peters replied A Because they weren't members of the union. Q Well, the contract requires them to be members, doesn't it? A The interpretation of the contract to me is, if they are qualified men, they will be members of my union Although Peters, Dumas, and J John Harding, C & B's president, all maintained, if somewhat vaguely, that C & B had had a standing request with the Union for workers since perhaps some time in March, it is undisputed that on Monday, April 26, Peters told the Charging Parties that there was no work available Peters' attempted explanation of this conduct is, like all of his testimony, so riddled with equivocation and inconsistencies as to be totally unreliable, if not unintelligible." Dumas' testimony concerning the hiring of the Charging Parties is as confused and incredible as is Peters' Dumas testified that for some time he had been in desperate need of qualified sheetmetal workers but Peters had been unable to provide any In the middle of April, when Redman first told Dumas of the anticipated layoff at Planair, Dumas said that he needed men and told Redman to report back when he became available Dumas did not mention to Peters or to Redman any specific qualifications he required According to Dumas, when Redman, having been laid off by Planair, returned to C & B, Dumas told him to go to see Peters and tell Peters to call Dumas. When asked why he had sent Redman to see Peters, Dumas replied "To make sure that [Peters] didn't have other people that I would have preferred, before I hired these " Dumas did not explain why he did not call Peters directly for that information Shillinsky, however, provided an explanation He testified that on Monday, April 26, Dumas indicated that he did not want to hire the union men he had learned were then available and said he would hire Shillinsky and Redman as soon as all the union men were otherwise employed Under these circumstances, it is understandable why Dumas would not call Peters directly, particularly in view of Peters' concession that Dumas had previously informed Peters of the Company's desire to hire Redman It is also significant that, while Dumas testified that Peters had called him pursuant to Redman's message, Peters testified that Dumas called the Union and said that he wanted to hire Redman and Shillinsky and it was then that Peters said that C & B might as well also hire Lagasse, with whom Dumas had had no previous contact. As previously stated, the Charging Parties commenced work for C & B on Wednesday, April 28. All three testified that on Wednesday, May 5, Dumas told them that Peters had called to demand their discharge because there were then union members out of work. The Charging Parties also testified that Dumas said that the Company, through Harding, was consulting counsel in an effort to resist the Union's pressure and meanwhile the employees should just "hang on." On the afternoon of Friday, May 7, the three men were discharged. According to them, Dumas at that time said that he had no alternative because Peters was threatening to picket and close down the Company if these men were not discharged. Dumas was also quoted as having repeated that the Company, through its lawyers, would continue to fight the Union's conduct by appeals to the Union's International in Washington and by litigation, if necessary. Dumas assured the men that the discharges were not because of any deficiency in their work and that he was very sorry to see them leave. Dumas referred them to two employers and the union business agent in another area, where they thereafter obtained employment. Dumas in effect conceded that he had told the men that their discharges were in response to union pressure. He maintained, however, that this was essentially a white lie, motivated by a desire to prevent emotional strain and retain the good will of the three men, since he might be dependent on them again sometime. As Dumas put it: I found out it was much easier, when I wanted to lay a man off, to give an excuse and blame somebody else . . . . I might even have told them that I got a call from Mr. Peters. I don't remember exactly what words I used. But, I have done this on occasions before. He then said that he thought it was at the end of the week, not on Wednesday, that he told the men he had received a call from Peters. But later he testified that on Wednesday he told the men that "Peters had some men available, and wanted to go to work." His testimony in this connection was, in part, as follows: I told them that we had a problem. Mr. Peters had called me and told me that possibly we would be able to get more men within the coming week . . . I told them that I had got a call from Peters saying that men were either available, or were going to become available. If, as he maintained, Dumas refrained from offending the men by saying their work was inadequate, the only way the availability of other men could reasonably create a "problem" was if they had prionty for some reason other than qualification for the work. Thus, even in Dumas' testimony there is clearly implicit an understanding that the Charging Parties could be replaced for reasons other than their qualifications for the job. As heretofore noted, C & B hired Francis Riley on April 29 and Paul Horner and Chester Aldrich on May 4. Dumas r On questioning hs the Trial Examiner Peters eventually said thatjob applicants weie ,wtomauealls required to file applications for union menihenhip upon hung referred to jobs This testimony, however, was contradicted hs Lawrence Mct aughlm who had been president of Respondent Union at the time here imoived and had replaced Peters as business representative in Rhode Island before the present hearing The fact is as discussed below, that the Union is not readily open to new members s The quality of Peters' testimony is exemplified by excerpts reproduced .is Appendix A to this Decision CASFLEMAN AND BATES, INC 481 testified that by May 4 he had definitely decided to discharge the Charging Parties for their lack of qualifica- tion for the work then available According to Dumas, Peters telephoned on the morning of May 5 to say that there would he two very competent men available the next week Dumas refused to make an immediate commitment to hire the two men, saying that he first wanted to consult Harding Peters became somewhat irascible and said he would call Harding himself, which he proceeded to do. The testimony concerning these events is confused and incon- sistent Harding was called as the General Counsel's first witness and examined pursuant to Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure He testified that some time before the Charging Parties were terminated Dumas spoke to him about a call from Peters saying that two additional men would be available the next week Harding testified that, in substance, he left it up to Dumas whether the men were needed and should be hired According to Harding, Dumas did not indicate whether he wanted to hire the men or not. Harding did indicate that he had had two conversations with Dumas about the matter, around 2 days apart. Harding then revealed that he had also been called by Peters directly Harding testified that he declined to make any commitment to Peters to hire the two men "The end of the conversation was that, as far as I know, we didn't need two men-or, 1 didn't know what we needed and I said that you talk to Hank Dumas and see what can be done " Harding then conceded that there was "a great possibility" that he "possibly mentioned it to Mr Dumas " Harding and Dumas both testified, repeatedly and emphatically. that Dumas was in complete charge of operations and normally consulted Harding only when he proposed to increase the payroll. On cross-examination by Charging Parties' counsel, Dumas was at a loss to explain why he had felt compelled to consult Harding before agreeing to hire the two men about to become available if, as he maintained, he had already decided to fire the Charging Parties 9 One other fact is noteworthy in this connection Lassonde and Farrias, the "carpenters" whom Dumas said he had hired in desperation for completely unskilled work, were retained when the Charging Parties were let go. Dumas said this was done only because the "carpenters" had been hired earlier However, Dumas also testified that they "knew that they were just temporary jobs, they were expecting to get canned," whereas the Charging Parties had no such notice as to their tenure Peters provided the key to this anomalous situation when he indicated that Lassonde and Farrias were members of a sister local of the Union.io Against the backdrop of the indisputable objective facts and the confusion and inconsistencies in the testimony of Respondents' representatives, the Charging Parties' testi- His testimony was as follows Q You were going to let go three men, and bring up another two That wasn't going to increase your staff, was it" A No but I still refer to lHardmgl on all financial status Q Was there going to be an increase, when you were going to hire two men after you were going to let go three" A No, but I see your point But, I just didn't have the work available for these other men The testimony in this respect was as follows mony paints a clear and totally believable picture. C & B, in need of sheetmetal workers, was pleased when Redman and Shrllinsky, frequent employees of C & B's predecessor, became available. Instead of calling the Union, Dumas hired his former employees directly, after ascertaining that all other sheetmetal workers in the area were employed. At that time, the Union cleared these employees and also referred Lagasse, who, like Redman and Shillinsky, was not a member of the Union. The next day the Union referred Riley, a union member who had just become available. C & B then had four new employees, the number which Respondents assert had been previously requested. But then union members Horner and Aldrich became unemployed. They were referred to and hired by C & B on May 4. Whether C & B intended to retain them as additional employees (or possibly as replacements for the "carpenters") is not clear. But it is clear that C & B had not requested them and Peters had sent them entirely on his own initiative. The next day he said he would send two more the following week. That was too much; C & B resisted, manifestly satisfied with the employees it had selected. But the Company's resistance was shortlived against the threat of union action. The "problem" caused by the presence of unemployed union members and no other vacancies could be solved only by C & B's creating vacancies by the discharge of nonunion employees. In effect, the three nonunion Charging Parties were replaced by four union members who had just become unemployed. In view of the foregoing analysis, little need be said of Respondents' contention that the Charging Parties were let go solely because they were not qualified for the work then available Although each of the Charging Parties had done sheetmetal work for considerable periods of time in the past, Respondents attempted to show that they were not fully "qualified journeymen" and were knowledgable only in limited and relatively easy phases of the work. A detailed analysis of the evidence in this connection would unduly extend this Decision because of three salient facts: (I) All three had worked for about a year for Planair, which Dumas testified is essentially the same type of company as C & B; (2) Dumas hired Shrllmsky and Redman with knowledge of their abilities, since they had worked under Dumas on several occasions in the past; and (3) Peters had referred the Charging Parties to jobs in the past. Peters testified that Dumas "was always fussy about wanting qualified journeymen" and employers were the judges of competence. It is undisputed that Dumas never criticized the men's work and did not suggest that they were being let go because of their lack of qualification. Even more signifi- cantly, Dumas never made any such statement to Peters. Harding's testimony fails to disclose that he was informed Q You are quite familiar with all the names of the union members, are you not" A I could miss out on some of them Q Would you say that Mr Farrias and Mr Lassonde are not union members" A I wouldn't say that, no, they could be members in some other union Q Of the sheet metal workers" A Yes, from another local 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of any deficiency in the Charging Parties' performance when he discussed the personnel changes with Dumas and Peters. Harding testified that he did not know whether there was any work which C & B's current employees were not qualified to perform. In testifying, Dumas and Shop Foreman William Fletcher maintained that Shillinsky demonstrated his incompetence by taking about 2-1/2 hours to do a job that should have taken 45 minutes. However, Shillinsky was not discharged or even reprimanded at that time. Lagasse was asked if he would like to try a somewhat difficult type of work. The matter ended when he declined, Dumas did not reprimand Lagasse or indicate that future employment depended on his ability and willingness to perform that type of operation. There was no similar incident with regard to Redman. The Trial Examiner credits Redman's and Shillinsky's testimony that Dumas did express approv- al of their performance, despite Dumas' denial and his protestation that it is not his policy to praise employees. Peters' testimony concerning the qualifications of the employees contains many inconsistencies. For example, he contended that the Charging Parties' prior experience in large part was essentially different from the construction type of work within Local 17's jurisdiction. However, he also testified that any person who had 5 years' membership in any Sheet Metal Workers Local was automatically entitled to transfer to any other local, including Local 17, and the fact of union membership established a worker's competence to Peters' satisfaction Indeed, Peters testified that he had recommended Shillinsky for union member- ship, relying on his past membership in two other locals as proof of his being a "qualified journeyman." Peters testified that when a person applies for work or membership in the Union he is asked about his experience. Peters testified that in referring people tojobs he attempts first to meet an employer's special requirements, if any, and then refers men in the order of their "qualification." He also takes into account "personal factors" and, in Peters' words, "There is no seniority in our union." He also makes recommendations, based on applicants' qualifica- tions, as to whether they should be interviewed by the Union's executive board for union membership. However, having expressed the opinion that the Charging Parties were not "qualified," Peters was confronted with the embarrassing fact that he had referred all of them to fobs at various times. To avoid the necessary inference that this indicated that they were qualified, Peters made such statements as: "I don't pass on their qualifications"; "I don't know the man's qualifications; I never worked with him"; and "I don't make that judgment [as to whether Hassell and Moore were more qualified than Redman] . . . . The employer [does]." But Dumas testified unequi- vocally that he hired at least Riley and Horner solely on Peters' recommendations as to their superior qualifica- tions. i i In short, Respondents' belated contention that C & B 11 Dumas' testimony was as follows Mr Peters told me [Riley I was a qualified mechanic I sent him right down I didn't even talk to him Q Did you ask Mr Homer about his qualifications when you hired him' A I went on Mr Peters' recommendation He told me, again, that discharged the Charging Parties because they were not qualified for the work available is unsupported by any credible evidence. There is no substantial credible evidence to rebut the General Counsel's clear evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that the Charging Parties were dis- missed at the Union's insistence because they were not members of the Union and union members were looking for work. There is no question that Respondents operated under an exclusive hiring hall arrangement . Representatives of both Respondents testified that all sheetmetal workers were hired through the Union or with union clearance when the Union was unable to refer any. Such an established arrangement constitutes an exclusive hiring hall even in the absence of a formal contractual provision therefor. Local 7, Intl. Assn. of Bridge, Structural, etc. (Waghorne-Brown Co.), 144 NLRB 925, 926-928; Bulletin Company, 181 NLRB 647, 654, enfd. 443 F.2d 863 (C.A. 3); Local 568, Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union (Warwick Hotel, Inc.), 141 NLRB 310. The Charging Parties testified to having been refused job referrals or laid off in the past when union members were available for work. Redman testified to an established practice by the Union "naturally" to prefer union members. According to Redman, if union members were out of work, permit men did not have any chance of securing employment with a union shop in the area. Peters testified that in referring applicants for work he gives primary consideration to their "qualifications." He confirmed the practice whereby employers are generally not free to hire on their own unless the Union has been unable to provide satisfactory employees within 48 hours.12 But he also testified that "if they are qualified men, they are members of my union" and union clearance of employment for nonunion men is required to assure that jobs go to any "more qualified" men who might be available. According to McLaughlin the unemployment rate among union members is very low, with about 90 percent being regularly employed full time. However, 1971 was a rather bad year and deviated from the usual pattern of increased employment in the summer. This would serve to explain why the Charging Parties were allowed to work for Planair undisturbed for a year until the layoff in April 1971 but encountered difficulty thereafter. First, Dumas delayed hiring Redman and Shillinsky until all union men were otherwise employed and then on May 5 told the Charging Parties of the "problem" created by Peters' announcement that some "qualified men" would be newly available the following week. Dumas' reactions are explicable only as reflecting an understanding that nonunion workers were employable only when there were no union members looking for work. The pattern of employment reflected at that time continues. Between May 7 and December 1 Peters did not he was a highly qualified man Q You just took Mr Peters' word for it? A Yes, which was good enough for me 12 To the extent that Lawrence McLaughlin , Peters' successor in Rhode Island, suggested that employers were free to hire anyone they wanted, his testimony is discredited CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC. 483 refer any nonunion men to employment. Since then Shillinsky and Lagasse 13 have unsuccessfully sought employment through McLaughlin, Peters' successor. De- spite McLaughlin's denial, the Trial Examiner credits Shillinsky's testimony that in January 1972 McLaughlin told him to telephone in but not to return because the union hall was for union members only. On all the evidence, it is found, as alleged in the amended complaint, that the Union has discriminatorily operated an exclusive hiring hall since March 22, 1971.14 The effects of the Union's misconduct are greatly intensified by its rigid restriction on union membership.15 McLaughlin has "never known of anyone who wanted to work who did not want to join" the Union The Charging Parties are no exception, having persistently attempted to obtain membership since 1968. But the Union has been so determined to control the labor market by restricting its membership that it has ignored the union-security clause in its contract, even to the point of permitting the Charging Parties to work a year for Planair without paying initiation fees or dues.is The Charging Parties first consulted counsel around the end of April, in an attempt to obtain union membership. On counsel's advice, they sent to the Union checks for their initiation fees and dues. The tender was refused and the checks were returned However, apparently as the result of counsel's intervention, Shillinsky and Lagasse were inter- viewed by the Union's executive board on May 20.17 They were then asked if they would drop their "case" against the Union if they were granted membership 18 However, no "deal" was made. 19 Subsequent inquiries brought no response concerning the status of the applications for membership The Charging Parties filed the present charges on September 21, 4-1/2 months after the discharge and 4 months after the interviews with the Union's executive board CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Associ- ation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Castleman and Bates, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 3. By causing Respondent Castleman and Bates to terminate the employment of Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest 13 Redman moved to Florida in November 14 Although the amended complaint alleges unlawful conduct by the "Union, through its agent, Robert Peters," events after Peters' replacement by McLaughlin were fully litigated 15 The record establishes that in practice new membership is limited to persons serving a union apprenticeship of 4 years commencing by age 22, extended by time spent in the Armed Services McLaughlin made the unrealistic suggestion that Lagasse, having retired from the Navy after some 20 years' service with practical sheetmetal work, now embark on a 4-year apprenticeship 16 McLaughlin testified Q Would you want them to become members, if they were employed 6 months or 9 months? A Sure Of course we would Q Would you require that they become members' A If they were qualified Yes Q Do you know why Shillinsky, Lagasse, and Redman were not W. Lagasse, Jr, and Francis I. Redman on May 7, 1971, because they were not members of Respondent Union, said Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act 4. By acquiescing in Respondent Union's discriminato- ry action and, pursuant thereto, terminating the employ- ment of Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., and Francis I. Redman, Respondent Castleman and Bates, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. By maintaining and enforcing an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice with Respondent Castleman and Bates, Inc., and other employers pursuant to which union members receive preference over nonmembers in referral to and retention of employment, Respondent Union has caused or attempted to cause employers to discriminate against employees and applicants for employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with Respondent Compa- ny's operations described in section I, 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. THE REMEDY In order to remedy the unfair labor practices found, the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondents be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of the egregious nature of the Union's conduct, which strikes at the heart of the Act and would effectively deny workmen their means of livelihood, the Trial Examiner will recommend issuance of a broad cease- and-desist order against the Union. The employer, on the other, was largely a victim of the Union's misconduct. While it was unlawful for the Company to yield to the Union's demand, protecting itself at the expense of its required to become members when they worked for Planair for almost a year" A 1 don't know why 11 Redman had been before the executive board in 1968 but was not granted an interview in 1971 He had incurred the special wrath of Peters by having allegedly bypassed the Union in obtainingjobs Peters conceded that he had said he would never recommend Redman for membership The executive board apparently grants interviews only on the recommendation of the business representative 11 The evidence is conflicting and confusing as to whether the quid pro quo suggested by the Union or demanded by the applicants was examination, union membership, and/or guaranteed employment 19 McLaughlin maintained that the executive board, of which he was a member as president of the Local, was not prepared to make a "deal" but was concerned by the possibility of a "shakedown" by the Charging Parties and/or their counsel, the "shakedown" being an offer to withdraw charges in exchange for admission into the Union 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, the fact is that the Company to some extent attempted to resist the Union's pressure. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner will not recommend a broad order against the Company. Although the present case arose in the Rhode Island area, the evidence discloses that there is considerable integration and interchange among the four areas within the Union's geographical jurisdiction. Central records are kept at the Union's principal office in Boston, Massachu- setts. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Union be required to post notices at all its offices and meeting places In his brief, the General Counsel suggests that the Union could be held solely liable for backpay. However, the fact remains that it was the Company which fired the men in disregard of their statutory rights. It should, therefore, shoulder part of the burden of making them whole for the wages the Company should have paid them See Williams Press, Inc, 195 NLRB No 159. Thus, it will be recom- mended that the Company and the Union be held jointly and severally responsible for loss of wages suffered by the Charging Parties between May 8 and such time, if any, as their employment with C & B would have been terminated absent the discrimination herein found. The evidence establishes that the named employees sought employment through the Union on April 26 and the Union at that time unlawfully refrained from referring them to Castleman and Bates, which had work available Where, as here, there is in effect an exclusive hiring hall arrangement, the union violates the Act by discriminatorily withholding referral or clearance and the employer violates the Act by refusing to hire without such clearance. United Construction Company, 169 NLRB 1. Thus, it will be recommended that the Respondents also be held jointly and severally liable for pay lost by the named employees on April 26 and 27, 1971 In addition, the Union will be held liable for any loss of earnings suffered by the Charging Parties as a result of the Union's discriminatory failure to refer them to other employment after May 7 Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716. C & B generally hires sheetmetal workers on a perma- nent basis. In hiring the Charging Parties, Dumas gave no indication that they were to be employed only temporarily. As of the time of the hearing, there were in C & B's employ two employees who had been hired after the Charging Parties. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that, absent the discriminatory discharges, at least two of the Charging Parties would have continued in C & B's employ. Accordingly, C & B will be ordered to offer the Charging Parties reinstatement to the extent that there would have beenjobs available absent the discrimination. It is undoubtedly beyond the Board's direct jurisdiction to require that the Union admit the Charging Parties to membership. However, since the Union has refused to grant them membership, it cannot in any manner interfere with the Charging Parties' employment because of their nonmembership. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No 577 (A J. Stockmeister, Inc), 196 NLRB No. 21, Laborers' International Union of North America, Local Union No. 573, AFL-CIO (F F. Mengel Construction Co ), 196 NLRB No 62. Accordingly, the Order and notices recommended herein will not contain the customary saving provision authorizing enforcement of a union-security provision valid under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Should the Union in the future eliminate arbitrary or otherwise unlawful restrictions on membership and embark on uniform and nondiscriminatory enforcement of its union- security clause, presumably application can then be made to the Board for modification of the present Order. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following recommended. 20 ORDER A. Respondent Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers Interna- tional Association, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Castleman and Bates, Inc., or any other employer, to discriminate against Robert J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., Francis I. Redman, or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to an exclusive hiring arrangement or practice with Castle- man and Bates, Inc., or any other employer, pursuant to which union members receive preference in referral to or retention of employment. (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees or applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Castleman and Bates, Inc., make John J. Shillinsky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., and Francis I. Redman whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of their nonemployment on April 26 and 27, 1971, and their termination by Castleman and Bates, Inc, on May 7, 1971, in accordance with the recommendation set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (b) Make the above-named employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discriminatory refusal or failure to refer them to employ- ment after May 7, 1971, in accordance with "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (c) Notify Castleman and Bates, Inc., and all other employers with whom the Union has collective-bargaining agreements that it has no objection to the hiring or employment of the above-named employees. (d) Notify each of the above-named employees that the Union has no objection to their employment by Castleman 20 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings , its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec deemed waived for all purposes CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC. 485 and Bates or any other employer with whom the Union has a collective-bargaining agreement (e) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B "11 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region I. after being duly signed by Respondent Union's representative, 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 its members are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notice,, are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (f) Post at the same places and under the same conditions set forth in paragraph (e), above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director for Region I. copies of Respondent Company's notice herein marked "Appendix C " (g) Mail to the Regional Director for Region I signed copies of "Appendix B" for posting by Castleman and Bates, Inc . in accordance with paragraph B2(f) of this Order, and by all employers with whom Respondent Union has collective-bargaining agreements, the latter being willing (h) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records timecards, personnel records and reports, insurance and pension fund records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order (i) Nonty the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith 22 B Respondent Castleman and Bates, Inc . its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Discriminating against Robert J Shilhnsky, Ernest W Lagasse, Jr , Francis I Redman, or any other employee or applicant for employment in regaid to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition thereof because of nonmembership in Local 17 Sheet Metal Workers Inteinational Association, AFL C10, or any other labor organization (h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, of coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to the above-named employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs if and when such jobs become available, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy " (b) Notify the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement (as set forth in paragraph B2(a), above), upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (c) Jointly and severally with Respondent Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, make each of the above- named employees whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the failure to employ them on April 26 and 27, 1971, and the termination of their employment on May 7, 1971, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (e) Post at all its offices and on its premises and at its jobsite within the territorial jurisdiction of Local 17 copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C." 23 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent Company's representative, shall be posted by Respondent Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Company to assure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material (f) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in paragraph B2(e), above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director for Region 1, copies of Respondent Local 17's notice herein marked "Appendix B " (g) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 1 signed copies of "Appendix C" for posting by Local 17 in accordance with paragraph A2(f) of this recommended Order (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1 , in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith 24 21 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a L rated States L ours of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board' 22 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 I in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith 23 See fn 21 Y1 See fn 22 APPENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M PETERS* Direct E vami,t rtion ht, Mr Coleman Q Do you recall hack in April or May of 1971 , did you *Minor typographical or spelling errors have been corrected 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have any conversation with anyone at Castleman and Bates concerning supplying of help to that Company`' A Yes, Mr Dumas called me and asked me for some qualified journeymen Q. Did you have any qualified journeymen at the time he called" A I did not, there were none. Q Did you agree to call Mr Dumas or Mr. Harding when you did have qualified journeymen, and did you later call them? A I did. Q Who did you call? A. I think I called Mr Harding, yes, I think it was Mr. Harding Q Do you remember approximately when that was? A Yes, it was in April, the latter part of April, yes Q What was the content of that conversation with Mr. Harding? A. Yes, I told Mr Harding I had some qualified men available and I think he said to me that he didn't know whether he needed them or not; his people needed them or not, and referred me to Mr. Dumas Q. And did you do anything after that? A Yes, I called Mr. Dumas. Q Did you have a conversation with Mr. Dumas? A Yes He told me to send him two qualified men over, that I told him I had available. Q. Do you recall making more than one such phone call to Mr. Dumas? A. Yes, I called him at another time, that I had two more men available, two competent-two competent journeymen. Q. When was that conversation, in relation to the first one, approximately9 A Well, it was a few days after that, or maybe a day or two after that, I don't know exactly. * these employees which health and welfare pension funds, vacation money is withheld from their wages, pension and health and welfare funds are paid on the hours they work, and I have to see that these employers pay to the various funds And I only way I know is to know where the men are working. Q I see And is that the purpose of a person calling the union or checking with the union after he finds a job9 A. This is right * Q On what basis do you send people out on jobs? A On the basis of what the contract calls for, qualified journeymen and apprentices Q. And are union members considered to be qualified journeymen" A Is a union member considered" Q. Yes A He certainly is, yes. Q And what is the procedure for attaining that status? A. Becoming a journeyman? Q. Well, let us say getting into the Union, restncting it to that. A. He has to serve a 4-year apprenticeship and then on- the-job training, at school, related training and then he becomes a member. He is tested periodically during that 4 years, and then becomes a member We also take people in that were not members of our apprenticeship system, but they come in to me, or whoever happens to be the business agent, and we ask them what their experiences have been, and if we think that they have had the proper amount of experience, we tell them to fill out an application. Then it goes before the Executive Board; the Executive Board tells these people to come in on a meeting night, and they interview them, ask their qualifications, and if they-if the Executive Board feels that they have the necessary qualifications to become a journeyman, then they are sent to an examining board, and they take a test. All applicants to be members take this test. Q. Do you recall Messrs Shillinsky, Lagasse and Redman coming to you at the union hall on Monday, April 26, 1971, looking for work? A. Yes, I don't recall whether that was the date or not. I recall the three of them coming in, yes. Q. Just before they went to work for Castleman and Bates? A Yes. Q. And do you recall any conversation which took place at that time with those three men9 A. They asked me if there was any work, and I said there was none available , I'm quite sure. Q. Do you recall any other conversation at that time? A. I think one of them asked me if I minded if he went and got his own job, and I said "no, I do not" as long as he let me know where he is working. Q. And, there has been a lot of testimony about getting clearance from the union Would you tell us what that means, as you understand. A. Clearance from the union, it is clearance from the union because we have contractual agreements with all * Q. It is true, as had been stated here in other testimony that permit men, that is, people who are not members of the union, never go to work until all of the union members go to work? A. No, in my previous testimony, I told you that we have card men loafing now and there are premrt men, so- called permit men, working now in the Rhode Island area, in two different shops, as a matter of fact. Q. Are the non-union members sent out based on qualification or based on their membership, or lack of membership? A. Definitely on their qualifications. That's how they hold the jobs. Cross-Examination by Mr. Rodio Q. You indicated, in reply to Mr. Coleman's question, that you referred these three gentlemen involved here, Mr Lagasse, Mr. Redman and Mr Shillinsky, to one or more jobs? CASTLEMAN AND BATES , INC 487 A. Yes. Q. At the time that you referred them, do you know whether all your union members were already employed at the time? A. I wouldn't know, no, offhand No, I wouldn't know that, no. I couldn't tell you whether they are all employed today or not A Yes Q And did he ask you if all the card men were working A I don't recall him asking me that, no Q Well, could you tell us, then, what the conversation was when he came in" A I said there was no work for him that day, I'm quite sure Q. Do you always make it a practice to ask all job applicants of their qualifications`' A. Yes, I think I do , yes. I try to Q. Well, do you? A. I try to, yes. Q Did you ask Mr Lagasse whether he had certain qualifications9 A. I asked him what his qualifications were , not certain qualifications. Q. All right Did you ever refer Mr Lagasse to any job? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you, when you spoke to Mr. Lagasse , feel that he was qualified as a journeyman? A. Did I feel that way? Q. Well, you passed on the qualifications before you referred them A. No, I didn't pass on the qualifications at all. I don't pass on their qualifications. * Q. Did you consider Mr. Lagasse qualified when you referred him to jobs? A. He was the best I had. Q. Would you refer a man that was not qualified? A. Well, you're splitting hares now- TRIAL EXAMINER: Would you answer the question please? A. The trade is a trade of skill Some are better than others, let's put it that way, and I would refer people that apply to me for a job, if I thought they could be adequate. Q. Did you think Mr. Lagasse was adequate for the job? A. Yes, at the time. * * * Q. You did receive a phone call from either Mr Redman or Mr Shillinsky after they had obtained employment at Castleman and Bates , did you not? A. Yes, I did. I testified to that Q. Right. With regard to that phone call, the day of that phone call, do you recall when Mr. Redman and/or Mr. Shillmsky were in the union hall? A. I recall Mr Redman coming in Q. And what did you tell Mr. Redman at that time? A. I testified that I was upset with him because he got a job when he had a job. Q. . . . I am referring to the period before the phone call, when you learned that he had the job. Didn't he come in there to inquire about a job in the morning? Q Then you received the phone call that afternoon, right? A It could have been that afternoon, or the next day, I'm not sure when it was Q. All right, in any case, do you recall whether it was Mr Redman or Mr Shillinsky who phoned you? A. Mr Shillinsky. Q And did Mr Shillmsky ask you if all the card men were working or not? A. No, I don't think he did, no. Q. You don't think he did? Did you receive- A. And I don't think I'd answer him if he did ask me, because I don't think it's any of his business. Q. And what did he tell you when he called you? A. That he had a job at Castleman and Bates. Q. And what did you say to him then? A I said "fine, go to work." Q Now, did he indicate to you that he was with somebody else? A. Yes, when he made the call, yes, he said he was with Mr. Redman. Q. And what did you say to him? A. I said I wanted to see Mr. Redman, to come to the hall. Q. What was the purpose of having Mr. Redman come into the hall? A I wanted to talk to him on the mere fact that he had gotten this job-I had gotten information that he had gotten a job on Friday and he had been to see me on a Monday, and this was Tuesday. Q Mr. Redman is not a union man-he is not a member of your union. A Mr. Redman is not a union man, that's right. Q. Now, what reason would you have for calling a non- union man into your office under those conditions, when he had already found a job? A. I wanted to make sure that he was getting what the contract called for. Q. Did you have confidence in Mr . Harding and Mr. Dumas at Castleman and Bates, paying the rates that were called for in your contract? A. All the confidence in the world. Q. Then would you tell us why it was that it was dust 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Redman that you were concerned about, not getting that rate A. I don't have much confidence in Mr. Redman. Q. And in April or May, Mr. Dumas had called you that he needed some qualified men, and you didn't have any available? A. That's right. Q. Now, was this before these three gentlemen, Mr. Lagasse, Mr. Redman and Mr. Shilhnsky , came to you on April 26 and 27? A. Yes. Well, I don't know whether it was-phrase that again. Q. Was the call that you received from Mr. Dumas, for qualified men, before or after Mr. Lagasse, Mr. Redman and Mr. Shillinsky came to you , on April 26th or 27th? A. Gee, I don't recall that. Q. Now, if they had been to you before, ygu felt that all three of these men were qualified journeymen, did you not? A. I would have sent them to the job, if that's what you're saying. TRIAL EXAMINER : . . . Did you refer Paul Homer-well, let us start with Francis Riley, Paul Horner , Chester Aldrich, Paul Hassell and Hugh Moore? THE WITNESS : I did, yes. TRIAL EXAMINER : Did you do that in response to any call from the company or did you , on the other hand, call the company and say "I've got some good men available," do you recall? THE WITNESS: I think on two of my calls I told them I had good men, the last two that were sent over , that I had two qualified men available. TRIAL EXAMINER : Looking at the list, would you say which are those that you offered voluntarily? THE WITNESS : I think it was Hassell and Moore. TRIAL EXAMINER: Now, the other three that you said you referred-was a request made of you? THE WITNESS: Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER : By whom and when? THE WITNESS : I can't tell you exatly when, but it was made by Mr. Dumas. * TRIAL EXAMINER : Do you know if it was before or after these three men told you that they hadjobs? THE WITNESS: It was before then. * * * Q. (By Mr. Rodio) Do you know, Mr. Peters, whether, at that time, Mr. Riley, Mr. Horner and Mr. Aldrich were registered with you, as being available for work? A. Yes, they were. They came in and reported to me, yes. Q. Just take it easy now-they were registered, with regard to the date that these three gentlemen that are involved in this proceeding started work , did Mr. Riley, Mr. Horner and Mr . Aldrich come to you and ask to be placed with some employer, was it after they had already started-after these three men had already started with Castleman and Bates? A. I don't think so, no. I don't think so. * * * * * Q. All right, now, if they had come to you before these three gentlemen started work , you would have referred them to Castleman and Bates as part of the qualified men that Mr. Dumas requested? A. Yes, I would have. Q. All right. So, that they came in after these three men went to work for Castleman and Bates and then you notified Castleman and Bates they were available, and they went to work there, is that correct? A. That could be right, that could be that way. TRIAL EXAMINER : ... General Counsel's Exhibit 3, which is stipulated as accurate and true , shows that Mr. Riley was hired at Castleman and Bates on April 29th, which was the day after the three men here involved were hired. THE WITNESS : All right. Then, my dates were wrong. TRIAL EXAMINER: All right, now, did you refer Mr. Riley to Castleman and Bates? THE WITNESS: I'm quite sure I did, yes. TRIAL EXAMINER : Do you remember under what circumstances you did? THE WITNESS: I think there was a request in for men from Mr. Dumas. TRIAL EXAMINER: Do you recall when the request came? THE WITNESS : No, I don't recall when the request came. TRIAL EXAMINER : All right. Now, the next two were hired on May 4th, and their names are Homer and Aldrich. . . . Did you refer them to Castleman and Bates? THE WITNESS : Yes, I did. TRIAL EXAMINER : Did you do that on your initiative, by calling the company and saying you had a couple of good men free, or did you get a request from the company? THE WITNESS : I think I called them. TRIAL EXAMINER: Do you recall when? THE WITNESS : No, I don't recall when, really, but I know they were loafing, let's put it that way. TRIAL EXAMINER : Do you recall why you called Castleman and Bates rather than some other company? THE WITNESS : Well, I probably called all the companies. TRIAL EXAMINER: You don 't specifically recall? THE WITNESS: I know that I called other companies, I ( \SILEMAN AND BATES, INC 489 don't know whethei these ire the men that I ..a. calling about, or not TRIAL EXAMINER This was done on ^,oui initlati%e not in response to a call" THE WITNESS Right and TRIAL EXAMINFR The next two are dated Mai 12th. as having started to work Their names are Hassell and Moore Did you refer them to Castleman and Bates? THE WITNESS I did TRIAL EXAMINER Did you do it in response to a request, or on your own" THE WITNESS MN mitiatise Q. (By Mr Rodio ) How mans employees had Mr. Dumas requested of you to fill thejobs they had available? A. He's requested different amounts at different times. This specific time" Q. This specific time A. I think it was four that he asked for, I'm not sure. Q. Four, and you couldn' t give us the exact date that this request was made9 A. No, I could not I get requests every day, many times a day. Q. . . . When, as the Trial Examiner indicated, these three men, Mr. Riley, Mr Horner and Mr Aldrich, were referred to Castleman and Bates for employment there, did you have any conversation with Mr Dumas about the further need for any more men? A. I always inquire if they need more men Q. And what did he tell you? A. I don't know that he said he wanted two more qualified men, or not I think that he did. Q. He didn't indicate that he had about all the men he needed at that time, by any chance, did he" A. Do you mean by indicate that he said it? Q. Did he say it? A. No. Q. Did he say that Mr. Lagasse was not qualified to do the work that he was doing" A. He didn't mention any names to me, no. Q. Did he say that Mr. Redman was not qualified to do the work he was doing? A. He didn't mention any names to me, any names. Q. Did he say that Mr. Shllhnsky was not qualified to do the work that he was doing? A No. Q. And what was it you told Mr. Redman when he came back to the union hall? That is, after that phone call? A. Specifically, I don't know. As I told you, we had a discussion, quite a discussion. Q. About what? A. About the way he procured jobs. Q. Would you explain it to us, what you mean by that? A Yes, he has one job and he goes to this other one I mean, I don't think it's right that people should have two jobs at the same time-a job in the hand and a job in his pocket, when there is other people looking for employ- ment Q. Would you explain to us why the union should be concerned about how many jobs an individual has? A. Because we have to service all the people that are in our union, and all the people that are applying for work. There is a fair way of distributing work, to my thinking anyway. TRIAL EXAMINER' How do you police your union security clause" THE WITNESS: What do you mean by that? TRIAL EXAMINER: How do you make sure that you don't have some freeloaders working at a plant who aren't paying dues? THE WITNESS: Oh, I visit the different plants. I visit the different jobs. I am the policeman in the area , if that's what you mean. TRIAL EXAMINER: You said that you check to see that employers are paying welfare , aren't you equally interested to see that the employees are paying their union dues? THE WITNESS: That's automatic-I didn't follow you. There is a record kept of the union dues by our financial secretary. If they are too much in arrears, they are automatically suspended; it's automatic. TRIAL EXAMINER : Well, of course, but you have an eight- day clause, don't you? THE WITNESS: Oh yes That's the law of the land, I think. Seven days, isn't it-the eighth day file an application. Q [By Mr. Rodio] Would you look at Article V of your collective-bargaining agreement . . . . Do you require that an employer have the employee join the union in accordance with that provision, after they have been employed? A. I don't enforce it, as such. Q. Well how? A. The man has to qualify and the way we do this-we don't send anyone out that hasn't made out an application for a job-excuse me, application for the union. We do it when they come in. Q. Are you saying then, that you don't-well, how do you find out if they are qualified? A. I explained that to you. I don't find out. It's done by the Board. TRIAL EXAMINER: I would just like you to clarify this last thing for me. You said you don't send them out until they apply for union membership, is that what you said? THE WITNESS: When they come in, Your Honor, and they tell me what their qualifications are, and how they go 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about getting-I have them fill out an application then and there for membership in the union. TRIAL EXAMINER: When they first come to the union to apply- THE WITNESS: For a job. And if I send them to a fob, providing I send them out to a job, there's a job available, I have to fill out an application. That is filed in my office, it is screened by the Executive Board. If the Executive Board feels that they should interview him, they notify him to come in If they feel-after they have interviewed him, they feel that they should be members of our union because of their qualifications, they are sent to an examining board * Q (By Mr Rodio) Now, if you have a qualified man go to work for an employer and he is not a member of the union, don't you require the employer to have him join the union by the eighth day of employment? A I don't require the employer to do that, no; I think it's the responsibility of the men. Q Well, pursuant to that provision of the contract that we just went over, doesn't that require that the man join the union on and after the eighth day9 A If he is qualified, yes Q Do you make recommendations to the Execu- tive Board based on your knowledge in the area, as to whether they should be admitted into membership? A Not admitted, interviewed. Q Oh. interviewed A Yes I recommend them to be interviewed and 1well. ves, I do recommend them on the basis of their qualifications and on the fact that they have been employed and the employer found them satisfactory. He does the paying, so, if he finds them satisfactory , they are all right Cross-Examination by Mr Stanzler Q I am a little unclear as to why you wanted to see Redman on the 27th, why you wanted him to come in. A Because I figured it's my duty to verbally chastise him in the action he took in getting thejob Q. He was not a member of your organization, was he? A He wasn't and he isn't Q Then why did you feel it was your duty to chastise hnn° A Because he is working for the employers that are in a contiactual agreement with me, because that job there might he available to one of our more qualified men. Q And is that the reason why you wanted to chastise him, because there might be a job available to a more qualified man9 A. Definitely Q Or to a member of yours9 A It could be both Q. . . . isn't it a fact that you so testified that you wanted to see him because you learned, somehow, that he had been to Castleman and Bates and obtained a job previously and when he came in Monday to see you and you told him there was no work, you knew that he had a job? A. That's right. Q. How did you find that out? A. I didn't know that he had a job, I knew that he had asked for a job. Q. How did you find that out? A. It was told to me. Q. By whom? A. I think by Mr. Shillinsky, told me. Q. Was it Mr. Dumas that told you? A. I think it was Mr. Shillinsky. Q. Are you sure it wasn't Mr. Dumas? A. I said I think it was Mr. Shillinsky. Q. When did Mr. Shillinsky tell you that? A. On a Monday, or Tuesday, when he called. Q. He told you on Tuesday when he called and said .,can I go to work here" and then he told you that Redman has had this job since last Friday? A. No. It was in-I think it was Mr. Dumas that told me that they had been over there looking for a job. Q. Are you sure? A. I think so, yes. s s s s Q. When did he tell you that? A. When he had called and asked for some men. Q. And when did he call you and ask for some men? A. Previous to that. That Friday, I think he called. Q. Did Mr. Dumas call you on Friday, the Friday prior to the 28th, asking you for some men? A. I think he did, yes. Q. And you told him you had no men? A. That's right, at the time. Q. ... He told you that Mr. Redman was in to see him? A. Yes. Q. And he said to you that he would like to have Mr. Redman go to work, is that right? A. I don't know whether he said that or not, possibly did. Possibly did, yes. Q. And yet Mr. Redman was still required to see you to get it cleared, is that right? A. That's right. s s s * Q. Now, you know that Mr. Redman, Mr. Shillinsky and Mr. Lagasse had worked at Planair for about a year prior to their being laid off at Planair? A. More than that, probably. Q. And you never required them to pay dues as union members, did you? A. No. CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC. 491 Q You never asked the company to discharge them, did you' A No Q You never saw fit to enforce the provisions of the contract° A I don't follow you I think I do enforce them. TRIAi EXAMINER Did you ever communicate with Planair about the union status or union dues payment of these three men° THE WI1Ni ss I did not Q (By Mr. Stanzler) Why not9 * timing of it, but-I don't know whether there was a request in at that time, or not. Q. But you just testified, didn't you- A. Yes, I did, yes, I did testify to that. Q. Now why did you say, then, on April the 26th that, to these men, that there was no work available-there were nojobs. A. Because there was no request in that morning for them, for jobs. Q. He requested them on the Fnday prior to that? A. He could have requested them a month before that, too, I'm not sure when he did request them. Q. As a matter of fact he told you, too, that, according to what you testified to, [he] said that Mr. Redman had been down to see [him ]- A. On the Friday afternoon. A. Because they weren't members of the union. Q. But you said you were enforcing the contract? A. I do enforce the contract Q Well, the contract requires them to be members, doesn't it? Members of the union, in order for them to continue employment? A. The interpretation of the contract to me is, if they are qualified men, they will be members of my union. A. I don't think that's part of the contract that I have to enforce Q Oh, I see, you only select certain provisions of the contract that you want to enforce9 A. No. No, I enforce the contract Q Well, do you enforce the contract with respect to union membership? A. With respect to union membership, yes. Q. And did you enforce the contract requiring the employer to have employees who are members of the union9 A. There is another stipulation, too, and I think it's the law of the land, I'm not a lawyer, but, it says that he has the right to employ anyone he wants, within a period of 48 hours, if I don't supply him with men Q Would you answer my question9 A. Your question is, do I enforce that Article 5, Section 59 Q With respect to maintenance of membership in the union security`' A No, I did not enforce that. * * * * * Q Well, is it fair to say that [Dumas ] called you at some time prior to the Wednesday, April 28th? A Yes Q Seeking qualified men9 A Qualified men, yes. Q How many did he ask for? A I think it was four at the time, I think I said that. Q Now, if that were the case, why, on April the 26th, did you say to Shillinsky and Lagasse and Redman that there was no work available9 A. I really don't know, in that sense, I don't know the * * * A. And yet you said to Mr. Redman that there was no work available on Monday? A. I possibly said that, yes. Q. Why? A. Well, I didn't like, for one thing, Mr. Redman going there and applying for a job, when he had a job, on that particular Fnday. EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE McLAUGHLIN Direct Examination by Mr. Coleman Q. Are you familiar with the union security clause, of the contract that you have with the employer? A. Yes, I am. Q. Requiring membership after 8 days? A. Yes, sir. I am. Q. Do you enforce that clause, as such? A. No. Q. Do you take any action concerning getting people into membership in the union? A. No. Not really. Q. Well, would you tell us what you do to get people into the union? Do you require them to apply for membership, before they are referred out of the hiring hall? A. No. No. All we take for them to be referred out of the hiring hall is their name, address , and Social Secunty number, and we put it on the route sheet. Q. On the what? A. On the route sheet. It's a card-it's an index card, that's all. Then they go to work. But the-then-I've never known of anyone who wanted to work who didn't want to join. We've never had to enforce the security clause. So, when a man is working a while, and we see that-you know-he's capable, and he likes the business , and what have you, then we have him make out an application for membership. But the eight days-the reason we don't enforce it, is that it's not a good way to do business, really. And the average guy who comes to you is unemployed. The reason he's there is he doesn't have a job. And he might have been working in a shipyard, nonunion shop, and there's quite a 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bit of difference between construction sheet metal, and that type of sheet metal And our initiation fee represents a substantial invest- ment. So, the man might have been unemployed, you know, two, three, four months. We don't believe it's good practice to put him to work, and then eight days later, wave a book in his face and ask him for money. Chances are he doesn't have that kind of money at the time. So, we generally let it go for a while, and see that-because we have no turnover in our membership. And that's what we're mainly interested in, that a man that comes in stays. So, it's more on a voluntary basis, then. Q. Did you hear Mr. Peters testify that he had people fill out an application when they first came in to be referred out of the hall? A. Yes, I did. Q. Do you know anything about that practice? A No, I don't. No. I've never heard of-to my knowledge, I've never had a man fill out an application prior to going to work. He has a card that you staple, that you put on to his application. But, it's a route sheet, it's not an application, as such. And then he makes out his application and you attach the card to it, and then his records stay together. Q. While you were president of the union, were you familiar with any practice to have people actually apply to join the union, before being referred out of the hiring hall? A No. As a matter of fact, our constitution-we can't-a man has to be employed in our jurisdiction, before we can process him for membership. So, an application without a job is no good. He has to be employed in our jurisdiction, and in that case, he wouldn't be. Our constitution forbids this practice. Q. Might it be done just as a means of registering him in the hiring hall, of getting information on him? A. An agent might use that as his own-as a personal record, you know-to keep, you know, the man's name, address, and Social Security number. But, whether he'd have him sign the application, I don't-I doubt very much. Q. But, you have a clause in your contract that requires membership after eight days of employment? A Yes. We have a security clause. Q. And why was that clause put in there? A. The clause-well, I think the Labor Management Relations Act, possibly. That's when it was put in there. Q. What about the Labor Management- A. I think it's a federal law, that eight days, if I'm not mistaken. Originally-I mean, I'm just speculating that that's the reason. I don't really know. I think it's eight days for building trades, and thirty days for industrial unions. Q. Do you take part in negotiations of these contracts? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you discuss these different clauses with the employers? A. Yes. Q. Do you understand what that clause requires? A. Yes. Q. What does it require? A. It requires that every man, after working eight days, it's compulsory that he Joins the union. Q. Now, you police these contracts in this area? A. Yes. Q. Do you require that employees join the union after eight days? A. No. We don't. Q. Is there any reason for having that clause in the contract, then, if you don't enforce it. A. Well, it's probably been there for a good number of years. The reason it's there is if we-if we wanted to, we could, I suppose . Whether we actually-whether we actually do, we don't. No. Examination by Trial Examiner TRIAL EXAMINER: Does the International constitution make any provision for qualifications for membership? THE WITNESS: Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: Does it require apprenticeship? THE WITNESS: No, it doesn't require apprenticeship. TRIAL EXAMINER: Roughly, what are the International constitution provisions for membership? THE WITNESS: The International-well, here again the locals maintain a lot of autonomy. The International simply says qualified journeyman. You know, and they do let you set up standards in relationship to your apprentice- ship program. The apprenticeship program is local. But, the actual reference they make, in the constitution is-you know-everybody knows what a sheet metal worker is. It's left to that. TRIAL EXAMINER: But, does the International constitu- tion, in effect, say that this-membership in this union is open only to qualified journeymen? THE WITNESS : In effect, this is it. Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: Generally, if a man is a member of one local, would he be accepted-not necessarily into member- ship-but, would he automatically be accepted and considered as a qualified journeyman, because he had been admitted to a local. THE WITNESS: Yes. There's a good chance that he would. Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: Then I want to know, if an employer should call you tomorrow, and say, "I want six men." You'd sort of pick them out of your mind, rather than going to this list, these route slips? THE WITNESS: Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: You wouldn't refer to the route slips? THE WITNESS: Because the unemployed men, it's just a mental process. You know who's unemployed. There's not that many, you know. It's not that- TRIAL EXAMINER: So you just decide, "Well, I've got so- and-so. I'm going to send him out."? THE WITNESS: Not necessarily that way. No. It'd go by what type of work the employer had. It'd go as to how long the man was loafing, as opposed to other men. And the type of work he had. Some employers do a lot of specialty work and they require certain skills than others. Others, you know, sometimes an employer will call and say, "I just CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC want a pair of hands. Send me whatever you've got " You know. Other times he'll call and say, "I want a layout man, a cutter, a fabricator." TRIAL EXAMINER: Suppose you don't have one of those that you-offhand you can't think of somebody that's been in to see you in the past couple of months, who's a good layout man. So, then, what do you do? THE WITNESS: So, then you can't provide the men, if you don't have them. TRIAL EXAMINER. Then, do you send him somebody else? Or, do you say, "Sorry, we don't have anybody"? Is that what you do? THE WITNESS: Well, generally he knows You see, in a small area like this, there's only 19 shops. And a lot of them are five or six man shops. And it isn't-I don't think there's any shop here that employs over-possibly-30 sheet metal workers. And the employers know the qualifications of the men, you know. And they know who can do what that's working for them This about takes care of it. And if I couldn't supply a layout man, I'd say, "Well, I'll keep my eyes open. If one comes in I think can do the job, I'll refer him to you, or send him to you " And he might say, "Well, you know, so-and-so is working for another company." You know, occasionally they engage in a little bit of raiding. They make him an offer for more money, than the company he's working for. And that man will go and work for him, see. So, he in turn will try and solicit himself, also. Redirect Examination by Mr Coleman Q. Did you say that ninety percent of your people work steady, and therefore would not be coming in and out looking for work? A. Yes I'd say the turnover into the hall is very minimal. I'd say that'd be a good average-would be as high as ninety. Q. Where do people who are not members of your union go when they want to seek employment in the sheet metal trades? The union hall? A. Not necessarily. No. They go to the sheet metal shop Q. Do some of them come to the union halh A. Yes. Some of them do. Q And can they register for employment at the union halh A. Q. Yes, they can Can they register union hall? A. Yes. for employment by calling the Q. . . . Is there any purpose to the eight-day clause, other than to force people into a union? Do you know? A. No. There's none that I know of. s 493 Recross-Examination by Mr. Stanzler Q. . Let's assume that you have a union contract with a shop, which has two employees that are union members. Thereafter the employer wants to increase his force, more people to go to work. He's got a big job. It's going to last for a period of time. And, he goes out and hires four new members, four new people, on his own. And they're nonunion members. They could work six to nine months. O.K.? You have no interest in those people becoming members of your union? A. Oh, no. I didn't say that. Sure we do. Q. You wouldn't enforce the contract, would you? A. I wouldn't enforce the eight-day provision. Q. But, you would enforce the contract? Would you want them to become members, if they were employed six months or nine months? A. Sure. Of course we would. Q. Would you require that they become members? A. If they were qualified. Yes. Q. If they were qualified. But if they were working for this particular employer for six or nine months, you wouldn't require them to become a member. Is that correct? A. No. Not necessarily. It depends. Q. Only-it depends, if you determine that they're qualified? A. Oh, no. Q. Or your Executive Board determines- A. Oh, no. Not at all. Q. -that they're qualified? A. The employer, in many cases, determines who's qualified. Because he might hire these four men. A week later, he might say, "They're four stiffs. Get me some more men." Q. Then, do you know what happens to a man that's employed, if he's employed by an employer, and wants to keep on working9 You would not require him to become a member, would you? A. Oh, yes. Q. You would? A. Yes. Q. Do you know why Shillinsky, Lagasse, and Redman were not required to become members when they worked for Planair for almost a year? A. I don't know why. APPENDIX C NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discriminate against Robert J. Shillin- sky, Ernest W. Lagasse, Jr., Francis I. Redman, or any other employee or applicant for employment in regard 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of nonmembership in Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees or any appli- cants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer the above-named employees full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those jobs no longer exist, to equivalent jobs, when available. WE WILL, jointly and severally with the above- named Union, make the above-named employees whole for any loss of pay they suffered as a result of our failure to hire them on April 26 and 27, 1971, and our terminating their employment on May 7, 1971. Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. 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, Bulfinch Building, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-3300. CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC. (Employer)